Before Obama even stepped into office you guys already had a 10 trillion dollar debt. There's endless talk about the debt ceiling, and the country being doomed because of Obama overspending... yet oh look, 10 trillion in debt from other presidents and let's just not look at that? Then there's the talk about the debt ceiling when it has been raised already over 100 times?
Again and again your country have been overspending and raising the debt ceiling, so why is Obama treated so differently?
He is treated differently due to his spendthrift behavior in comparison to other presidents. His ideas about curing the economy [such as high taxation on the rich, unwanted stimulus, etc.] are not going to help, at all. Just the opposite will happen.
He is treated differently due to his spendthrift behavior in comparison to other presidents. Spendthrift? You mean the slowest growth rate in federal spending in over 50 years? [link]
His ideas about curing the economy [such as high taxation on the rich, unwanted stimulus, etc.] are not going to help, at all. Except they are helping. They're lowering unemployment. They're reducing our deficits. What exactly is your definition of "help", and why does it differ from everyone else's definition?
Just the opposite will happen. That's what the Republitards said in 2009. It hasn't happened. The opposite of what they said would happen happened. The economy bounced back. GDP is growing. The recession has ended.
Inb4 I'm a racist and it's Bush's fault. I wasn't going to say that. Just that you're an idiot.
Except they are helping. They're lowering unemployment. They're reducing our deficits. What exactly is your definition of "help", and why does it differ from everyone else's definition? I actually proved just the opposite on this good try though.
That's what the Republitards said in 2009. It hasn't happened. Oooh insulting a party now are we? Sassy, darling. Woah, hold up. The recession has ended.
I wasn't going to say that. Just that you're an idiot. It's a joke dear, since those are two common phrases your wing seems to throw at people who have different opinions. You seem to be very close minded- to have to go through and read/reply to all of my comments is dedication, but you aren't exactly making a point. I have my side which I gave to OP. I answered his/her question. Your constant name calling and obvious anger doesn't really make you sound convincing, and I literally can't take anything you said seriously in any of your replies. Oh and... the questions I asked were for kkart to answer. I mean, sure, you butt right in but not only did you waste your time but I don't value your input seeing as you invited yourself into the conversation rudely. You seem like an angry individual, chillax holmes. Not everyone has to think the same way you do, and not everyone is.. how you put it, an "idiot" or "ignorant" for thinking otherwise. That's something a selfish person would say, and I could easily shoot those comments right back at you if I had the rudeness to.
I actually proved just the opposite on this good try though. You did? Unemployment is up and the deficit is growing?
You seem to be very close minded- to have to go through and read/reply to all of my comments is dedication, but you aren't exactly making a point. The point I made was that you're wrong.
our constant name calling and obvious anger doesn't really make you sound convincing, and I literally can't take anything you said seriously in any of your replies. That's too bad. Everything I said was true. Ad hominem aside, it'd do you some good to fact check me.
I mean, sure, you butt right in but not only did you waste your time but I don't value your input seeing as you invited yourself into the conversation rudely. Rudely? Oh me! Did I hurt your delicate little feelings?
how you put it, an "idiot" or "ignorant" for thinking otherwise. Well, see, here's the thing. We can have ideological differences as far as X, Y, and Z go. What we can't do is invent an entirely new alternate-reality to suit your agenda. You claimed Obama is on a spend thrift. It's wrong. It's just plain wrong. It isn't in reality. Then you said his economic stimulus and tax hikes on millionaires wouldn't help the economy. Again, a fictitious reality. You're wrong -- they did help. We're not disagreeing on ideology. We're disagreeing on reality. The difference is, my reality isn't made up.
That's something a selfish person would say, and I could easily shoot those comments right back at you if I had the rudeness to. Wait...You were the one highlighting all of the unemployment benefits in the stimulus package as a bad thing...I'm the selfish one?
Everything I said was true Sadly not, my dear. The point I made was that you're wrong. you see, that is where you are wrong. alternate-reality to suit your agenda. You claimed Obama is on a spend thrift. hmmm... You read my original statement wrong, it seems. The difference is, my reality isn't made up. As far as I'm concerned, stimulus and tax hikes have not helped, what-so-ever. Wait...You were the one highlighting all of the unemployment benefits in the stimulus package as a bad thing...I'm the selfish one? dear, do not take my highlighting out of context.
You are probably going to reply to this to because you are the kind of person who needs to have last say and how dare anyone else voice an opinion. So be it. I have better things to do then waste my time on a person like you. Go lurk other people's debates now and have fun, replying to me will be pointlessly redundant.
Sadly not, my dear. Actually, I'm right. Deficit as of 2009 - 1.4 trillion. Today - 1.1 trillion. Unemployment at the start of the President's term - 8.2%. Today - 7.7%.
You read my original statement wrong, it seems. Which part? Was it the part where you said Obama was on a spend thrift? Pretty sure I read that.
As far as I'm concerned, stimulus and tax hikes have not helped, what-so-ever. Reality doesn't bend to your concerns. Reality is that the stimulus and the tax hikes HAVE helped. Somebody already provided you a CBO source on the effects of the Recovery Act.
dear, do not take my highlighting out of context. Actually, it was in context. That's exactly what you said.
replying to me will be pointlessly redundant. Probably. I'm giving you pearls, pearls of reality. And like pearls before swine, it goes wasted.
Which part? Was it the part where you said Obama was on a spend thrift? Pretty sure I read that.
Actually, I'm right. I have found multiple sources stating otherwise. Reality doesn't bend to your concerns. Reality is that the stimulus and the tax hikes HAVE helped. Somebody already provided you a CBO source on the effects of the Recovery Act. Reality is that they statistically have not helped. Actually, it was in context. That's exactly what you said. Actually, your evaluation was far out of context to the point I was making. Probably. I'm giving you pearls, pearls of reality. And like pearls before swine, it goes wasted. Definitely. Again, goodbye. There is absolutely no reason to continue. As I said before I have my facts and opinions and you have yours. You need to learn to accept that like I said, not everyone in this country needs to share your same leftist views. I let you have your say and I'm requesting you drop it because this is getting off-topic.
Worry less about "I'm a racist and it's Bushes fault" and more about how even before the Bush Tax Cuts that the rich were already paying record low taxes in the US History since the early 1900's. Look it up. Our country also has the highest income disparity of any country. Therefore they still pay the most taxes but have a staggering amount of wealth centralized in their banks, which seeing how we supposedly rely on consumerism to create jobs, it's kind of a funny situation.
If you actually care about real life facts and not talking points then your free to look this up. But very few people will actually do that as this is more about tribalism than reality.
Worry less about "I'm a racist and it's Bushes fault" and more about how even before the Bush Tax Cuts that the rich were already paying record low taxes in the US History since the early 1900's. Look it up.
you missed the joke !
I was simply answering OP's question. You are free to state your opinion, but it would be more effective to respond to OP then me, to get any opinion you have across. I still stand by my original comment.
unwanted stimulus and high taxes on the rich? Unwanted stimulus by whom? Republicans? The stimulus has helped and it saved millions of jobs. That is a fact. High taxes on the rich help revenue and it had to be done. The 1% pay next to nothing compared to everybody else. Argue what you will about the overall amount however the % itself is less. What needs to happen is ending the loopholes so this country isn't losing out on a 100 billion a year that millionaires & billionaires hide in off shore accounts.
High taxes on the rich help revenue and it had to be done
The rich are the job providers, are they not? Heavy taxation cuts jobs instead of creating.
unwanted stimulus and high taxes on the rich? Unwanted stimulus by whom? Republicans?
"The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions." I suggest you read some of the ridiculous things that money is going to. "More than 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus went into effect -- a large amount of the 7 million jobs lost since the recession started last year. There will be some impact. In 2010 and 2011, we'll likely have about 2.5-3 million temporary jobs, but we've lost permanently 7 million private sector jobs" " Oh and...I'm not a republican if that's what you were implying.
The rich are the job providers, are they not? Heavy taxation cuts jobs instead of creating. We'll never mind that 1) marginal tax rates play no role in GDP growth based on the 1950s, and the 1990s, or 2) that taxes are at historically low rates. Cutting taxes on the rich does not provide jobs. It just doesn't do it. Yes, raise taxes on the rich. That will lower our budget deficit and our public debt.
expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. OH LAWD NO! They kept the social safety nets in place for people who were hit by an economic recession! THOSE SOCIALISTIC BASTARDS! By the way, I'm being satirical.
but we've lost permanently 7 million private sector jobs What in the name of holy fuck does that have to do with the stimulus bill? You realize that the bill was enacted BECAUSE we permanently lost 7 million private sector jobs, right? My dear God the density. The Stimulus Act saved millions of job, in addition to creating 2.5 million jobs (and that's actually a lower figure compared to some estimates!). You call it unwanted stimulus? Well, if it's legitimately unwanted stimulus, the private sector has a way of shutting that whole thing down.
Oh and...I'm not a republican if that's what you were implying. No, you're just ignorant. I would have been nicer to you, but that oft repeated rhetoric about the "job creators" has driven me absolutely bonkers. I have no more patience for people who repeat bullshit rhetoric, or people who talk about things which they obviously don't know jack-shit about.
Job providers? I wouldn't say that they are the job providers as much as the guy who just started up his own company. this is a false idea that "those who are job providers are rich" when in fact most are not. The creators of jobs are consumers, with disposable income to spend and the small businesses that meet their demand. But in a blind, all out effort to hoard as much capital as they possibly can (more than any other time in history) the rich have discarded the American worker (who was the consumer that enabled them to attain their wealth) and starved the small business operator of access to affordable capital.
As far as the stimulus, you need to read what would have happened if we had let Detroit go bankrupt. Think about it, the biggest manufacturing market in America, gone. While most people associate it strictly with the auto makers themselves, think about the aftermarket. Steel companies, rubber companies, fiber companies like 3M...think about all the parts on a car, Firestone, Goodyear, Uniroyal, the stereo companies, the glass companies, on and on and on...absolutely massive in scale. With no stimulus there would be literally millions more unemployed and the social system (what a joke it is as it stands now) would have gone adios because of rush on food stamps and Gov't assistance.
I stand by the facts I have stated. And again, you should read what the stimulus money is going into, bringing up Detroit is pretty irrelevant to the point made earlier. Perhaps you got confused because the spending was around the same time, but bailing out the car companies and the stimulus spending are two completely different things, perhaps you got confused and thought the stimulus helped pay for the car companies? And to be completely fair, It would have been better to let them go bankrupt, this would have allowed them to regroup and change/reduce the ridiculous benefits the unions were getting [which caused the bankruptcy]. But again, that is completely off topic and I have no idea where that came from and do not wish to discuss it further.
this is a false idea that "those who are job providers are rich" when in fact most are not.
It takes money to start up a business... A successful one, at least. You need money to not only pay workers but also to buy supplies, etc. Those who have worked for the money [examples- pilots, engineers, doctors, etc.] will have heavier taxes... Makes no sense to me. Depends what you define as "rich". Either way, taxes should not be raised for anyone until government spending is capped with a strict budget. There is absolutely no reason for a rise in taxation if the government still has out-of-control spending, which brings us back to the original topic, and my original post in reply to OP. I rest my case. If you have anything else to say feel free to reply to OP as I have made my point clear and have no reason to further explain myself to someone who will continue to disagree. Have a nice day.
So, I was reading this in my head, and I got this far. "It would have been better to let them go bankrupt, this would have allowed them to regroup and change/reduce the ridiculous benefits the unions were getting [which caused the bankruptcy]."
Stop stop stop stop. Unions had nothing to do with the bankruptcy. It was the fact that they didn't adapt to the growing market for more fuel efficient cars. Please stop espousing nonsensical talking points. People might actually believe you.
Makes no sense to me. Probably because you know absolutely nothing about basic economics.
Depends what you define as "rich" My personal definition is over 100,000 a year.
taxes should not be raised for anyone until government spending is capped with a strict budget Why is that? Government spending isn't what's grown out of control. It's tax cuts which keep getting handed out. I mean, the whole fiscal cliff was about whether or not we allow tax cuts to EXPIRE. Not actively raise them. Government spending has stayed virtually the same. It's taxes which are ridiculously low. That's what drives up the deficit and the debt.
There is absolutely no reason for a rise in taxation if the government still has out-of-control spending How's about it doesn't actually have out-of-control spending and a rise in taxes will end deficit spending and reduce the public debt?
Not confused in teh least sense of the word and no it wouldn't have been better to let them go bankrupt as per instances which I cited. In fact the saving of the auto industry is one of the largest success stories of the Obama administration [link] As far as the stimulus itself, it added 3.3 million jobs [link] according to the CBO it it's findings.
It takes money tops tart a business sure and what about all those small business Gov't loans? What about those of us who are professional artists? See, here is the deal, the rich ARE NOT job creators. What creates jobs? The economy and ONLY the economy. Without consumers each and every single business would falter and when your business grows you then add more jobs to accommodate. this is basic business 101 here. Out of control spending? Obama is the smallest Gov't spender since Ike [link] Everyone THINKS we have a spending problem when in fact what we have is Bush tax cuts not paid for and 2 wars paid with a credit card. Even the right leaning Wall Street Journal says the Obama "binge"? It never happened [link]
I have no idea where that came from and do not wish to discuss it further.... I rest my case. If you have anything else to say feel free to reply to OP as I have made my point clear and have no reason to further explain myself to someone who will continue to disagree. Have a nice day.
I guess you wanted last say. "Obama is the smallest Gov't spender..." "Everyone THINKS we have a spending problem when in fact what we have is Bush tax cuts not paid for and 2 wars paid with a credit card." Not sure if serious? Or.... And again you are confusing stimulus with the bailout like I said... I don't feel like re-explaining to a brick wall. You refuse to stay on topic. Tl;dr, I'm busy and answered OP's question. You are getting off-topic and as I said, I do not feel the need to further explain myself to someone who will continue to disagree. As I said before, have a nice day. To each his or her own.
Because Obama's the first president in a long time actually doing anything approaching liberal policies, so of course the conservatives hate him, just because.
Really, I can't figure out why the Republicans have gone so batshit either. They used to actually be a halfway reasonable party. Now they don't even support their own ideals. They seem to automatically hate anything the Democrats do, even if it was once their own idea. They're absolutely batshit.
Yup like the "Obamacare" Policies that were very similar to what Romney passed in his own state of Michigan.
Like Bush wanting to give green cards to all illegal immigrants. Like how you are a terrorist if you don't approve of the Iraq/Afghanistan war - until Obama became the POTUS, then suddenly it was wastefuly spending.
The republicans of the 70's-90's were respectable. This new breed of neo-kristian teaparty republicans = bat shit crazy is the only way of describing them.
Privatized police/firefighters. Ban all Unions. No minimum wage. Child labor okay.
Hey let's just become China and save ourselves the trouble?
And, yep. I know people on these forums love to paint me as a crazy liberal, but I genuinely was a left-leaning moderate back in the day, and there were Republicans I respected. Hell, I still respect the old Republican ideals, and I like folks like Huntsman nowadays. (Not to enough to vote for him, but enough that I would have respected him in office.)
But the latest brand of Republicans and conservatives, and their allies the right-libertarians, leave me very horrified much of the time. And in a lot of ways the Democrats uphold the old conservative ideals better than the recent conservatives do.
If we had a more viable leftist third party, the Democrats would actually be the new right.
I don't think him being black as much to do with it
I disagree. His economic agenda has basically been their policies. His foreign policy has basically been their foreign policy. There has been various sorts of mud slinging made which seem to have a clear allusion in the ethnicity of our President, such as questioning the President's birth certificate.
So why do they oppose every single other Democrat and the party in general if it's all about Obama being black?
I see the mudslinging about Obama's birth certificate being no different than the mudslinging every other president gets. If Obama wasn't black they'd just find something else to mudsling about.
On top of that, when you want your own party in office it's a lot easier to attempt legal trickery to get the current opposing pres out of office than it is to do it legitimately. I'd consider that a more realistic motive.
So why do they oppose every single other Democrat and the party in general if it's all about Obama being black? Because the best way to stick it to Obama (give him a bad image, or block his legislative agendas) is by opposing Democrats in general. Supporting a bill with Democrats to the point that it gets passed is more or less a victory for President Obama.
I see the mudslinging about Obama's birth certificate being no different than the mudslinging every other president gets. Uh, we on the left called Bush stupid. It wasn't mud slinging. Bush was a stupid man. Questioning the President's validity for office on the basis of his birth certificate is nothing more than racism in the guise of being Constitutionally-astute.
If Obama wasn't black they'd just find something else to mudsling about. I know. That's what I'm saying! Usually they just strawman some other issue as far as that goes, but with Obama, they're questioning his citizenship.
when you want your own party in office it's a lot easier to attempt legal trickery to get the current opposing pres out of office than it is to do it legitimately Rep. Tim Scott wants to impeach Obama. That's legal trickery in the slimiest form.
"Because the best way to stick it to Obama (give him a bad image, or block his legislative agendas) is by opposing Democrats in general."
Sorry, that makes zero sense.
As an example, the Democrats hated Bush, but worked with Republicans has a whole. If the Republicans really just hated Obama they'd do the same.
I've never seen any indication that Republicans actually hate Obama and the Democrats for anything other than being Democrats in power while the Republicans know they themselves are a dying party.
"Usually they just strawman some other issue as far as that goes, but with Obama, they're questioning his citizenship."
Kind of like how people made fun of Romney being Mormon because it was the easiest thing to pick on him and discredit him about? Kind of like how people focused on Warren claiming she was Native American?
Politicians go for the jugular, and go for the obvious targets. Not because they hate the person for being black/woman/Mormon but because they dislike a given person as a whole standing in their way of power and go for whatever the most convenient attack vector is.
"Rep. Tim Scott wants to impeach Obama. That's legal trickery in the slimiest form."
Sorry, that makes zero sense. Mitch McConnell said that the number one goal of Congress was to make President Obama a 1-term President. Obviously they failed in that, but the point remains. The 112th Congress was the single least productive Congress in US history. Congressional Republicans of the past were able to work with the President, even if they did malign him. Democrats worked with Bush, even though they maligned him. Republicans worked with Clinton.
If the Republicans really just hated Obama they'd do the same. Why do you say that? That'd just be legislative victories for Obama. It'd mean actually doing something about jobs. The President can't even pass a tax cut without getting grief from them. If Obama passed a carbon-copy of Ronald Reagan tax cuts, they'd still have beef.
Kind of like how people made fun of Romney being Mormon Except no Congressional Democrats or Democratic leaders actually singled that out and attacked Romney for it. That was just the Democratic community. We have Congressional leaders who actually believe that Obama is a socialist Muslim from Kenya.
You're just proving my point, here. That they don't hate Obama because of some deep rooted racism? No, I didn't prove that point. I proved they'll use legal trickery. You made a claim and I backed it up. I wasn't arguing with the claim. I gave an example for it. Republicans will use legal trickery. I agree.
Now, you're a smart girl. In the entire House of Representatives, you're really going to tell me that the party which threw Aunt Jemama jokes at the first lady, the same party which has questioned the validity of the President's birth certificate, doesn't have some deep-rooted racism? At least admit that some members of Congress refuse to work with the President because they're racist. Not all, of course. I don't believe all of them are racist. But some.
Because the deficit we have is huge. CBO says that on present trend the debt will hit 90% by 2022. It then balloons to 109% by 2026 - the WWII peak - and then approaches 200% by 2037. So inside of a decade, the country will be well into the 90%-100% danger zone where the economy begins to slow and risks mount. According to CBO, the level of debt increases "the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates".
Assuming that tax collections continue to hold to the post-1972 average of 18% of GDP, and that the "phantom" cuts to entitlement spending built into the budget don't happen in practice, as they never do, debt would exceed 250% of GDP in 2035. At this point, CBO's model breaks, because so much debt is so far outside "historical experience" and the CBO's "assumptions may no longer be valid." Even ignoring those, if interest on the debt rises 0.5% higher than CBO expects, they expect debt to hit 215% by 2037.
The development that explains why this is so bad is the entitlement state. Post ObamaCare, CBO explains that federal spending on health care will rise to 10.4% over the next quarter-century. Throw in Social Security and interest on the debt, and by 2025 there's n tax revenue left to do other things the government is supposed to do. Forget about building roads and funding scientific research. The entire defense budget would be deficit-financed.
Because of the Republican vocal minority. They're the ones with the most attention to the outside world. Also remember what is happening with Greece, something that has made the whole world paranoid about spending. But to be honest, FDR's New Deal didn't do as much as the WWI outbreak did. That's when America really started to prosper.
because, we have 16 trillion dollars of debt and we can't just keep gathering more and more and more debt forever.
oh and, according to your post, debt has gone up 6 trillion so far under obama ALONE, and all the presidents in the past COMBINED raised debt to 10 trillion. so that's why so many people are critical of obama's spending, you answered your own question.
(though i'm not saying that pas presidents are not to blame at all)
There was a massive global recession, and America in particular was hit very hard. To get out of a recession a country's government must spend enormous amounts of money creating and maintaining jobs, as well as improving domestic infrastructure and industry. At the same time, because so many people have been fired and are unable to find employment social program costs skyrocket.
With this in mind I think it's very understandable to see why Obama has spent so much money - he's pretty much forced to. Without heavy government spending to make up for a lack of private activity America would probably be in a much worse situation, and be taking even longer to recover from the recession.
I wouldn't argue at all if a lot of it is spent the wrong ways or if areas needing to be cut have not been cut, but the majority of spending would most likely be very necessary. The very act of a government spending money on local matters helps it to get out of a recession faster.
1) In 2010 Obama and congress created over a million jobs though. That's more jobs in one year than Bush did in 8. The stimulus package kept some 1.4-3 million jobs afloat. In 2011 your government created some 113,000 in the private sector alone. Obama made a huge push for repairing and building new infrastructure across America too - that's several thousand jobs again. And by fixing and improving the country's infrastructure the economy gets even more efficient, with less waste all around.
2) You deal with the debt by getting out of a recession, and getting your economy in a position to start paying it back. That's not possible in the current state America is in. Too many people are unemployed, and there's too few people to raise tax revenue from as a result. Trying to balance the deficit during this time would be like trying to get oxygen by hyperventilating.
From what I can tell, what America needed to do a long time ago was create industry and infrastructure in order to produce things to sell to other countries. Export rather than import. Regulations also needed to be put into place to prevent outsourcing jobs to workers in foreign countries. That would have prevented a lot of money from leaking from the country, and given people IN the country a job to pay for the things that were being sold to them. By also creating industry and infrastructure the government could then also safely reduce military spending, and ensure soldiers coming home would have a job. From an economic perspective military spending is mostly a dead end, so moving soldiers into jobs where they actually produce or help create something will only help the economy immensely.
There is a lot that could, and should have been done, but they weren't. From my perspective America seems to be paying for those mistakes now. Obama has to do what previous presidents should have done a long time ago, and he HAS to do it at a very bad time. A lot of baggage and the results of irresponsible actions have landed on his shoulders all at once. He's done some very bad things on his own, but I think he would have been fairly screwed anyway.
I might be looking at bad information however, or looking at things the wrong way. Will look into it more in the future, and try to learn more. Thank you for posting
Also, a more detailed response: I find it odd that conservatives say we should run the country like a business, when you consider the fact that when a business has to grow its revenue/successs, it SPENDS MONEY. Money gained from investors! And yet they oppose when the government has to follow the same economic fact to grow the economy.
of course gov't creates public sector jobs, but not private sector.
Several construction workers are working on repairing highways used by roads. They purchase the cement from X's Cement Company, boosting his demand and potentially number of people employed. Those same workers get on their lunch break, and dine at the local diner a block away from their construction site. The restaurant just had a rise in demand for the product they serve. With more food, there's more dishes. Now the manager hires on a guy to help wash the dishes at the restaurant. This is a very simplistic example, but it works on a larger scale. That being said, government doesn't create jobs? Look at Chrysler. Look up the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Look up the Cash for Clunkers program. All have jobs created through direct government involvement.
and how are we going to bring in so much revenue? Stop giving out tax cuts like they're candy is a good start. Passing the Fairness in Taxation Act to create new income tax brackets on millionaires and billionaires alike to boost revenue, in addition to ending a variety of pointless subsidies to companies which don't need them.