Why are Amercans so worried about the debt ceiling and Obama spending?


Saidryian's avatar
America has been in various states of debt since what, pretty much forever? To get out of the great depression your government spent money like crazy, invested heavily in social programs and went deep into debt. It's a lot more complicated than that, yet it essentially worked.

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? Seriously, could someone please explain the sudden hysteria to me? [link]
Comments125
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
qwertywithak's avatar
America is a greedy jerk.
Cecelia9's avatar
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.

Inb4 I'm a racist and it's Bush's fault.
mgonzales041090's avatar
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.
Cecelia9's avatar
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. :rofl: :lmao: :lol:

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. :beer: 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. :)
mgonzales041090's avatar
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?
Cecelia9's avatar
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. :P
mgonzales041090's avatar
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.
Cecelia9's avatar
Which part? Was it the part where you said Obama was on a spend thrift? Pretty sure I read that.
:facepalm:
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.
bblotus's avatar
"High taxes on the rich."

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.
Cecelia9's avatar
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 :lmao:!

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. :)
bblotus's avatar
Ahe so I did. Misread that post.
kkart's avatar
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.
Cecelia9's avatar
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.[1] 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. ;)
mgonzales041090's avatar
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.
kkart's avatar
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.
Cecelia9's avatar
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.
mgonzales041090's avatar
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?
kkart's avatar
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]
Cecelia9's avatar
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...:facepalm:. 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.
mgonzales041090's avatar
This is cute. I'll handle this when I get off work.
stingray970's avatar
Actually, America was entirely debt-free under Andrew Jackson.

First and only time that ever occurred. Dig up the corpse and he'd be sure to win the 2016 election.