National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

WRONG AGAIN, AS ALWAYS. DON'T YOU FEEL BAD BEING ALWAYS WRONG?

#15 is a liberal fantasy and a comedy.

Nov. 2006 DEMOCRATS SWEEP THE ELECTIONS. Taking control of BOTH Houses of CONGRESS from the Republicans.

Jan 2007, the DEMOCRATS that swept the Nov 2006 elections are seated in BOTH Houses of CONGRESS. Budget for FY 2008 is submitted in Feb, 2007. The DEMOCRATICALLY controlled CONGRESS passes the budget calling for increased spending and increased deficit spending.

Feb 2008, the budget for FY 2009 is submitted. The DEMOCRATICALLY controlled CONGRESS passes a budget calling for OVER $3 trillion in spending for the first time in US history and a deficit of over $1,400 TRILLION. MORE than 3 times the highest budget deficit EVER incurred by a Republican CONGRESS. And THAT is the last budget EVER passed by a DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS. With Democrats now in control of the White House and CONGRESS. No new budget is passed. The US Govt continues on through FY 2010 and FY 2011, with continuing resolutions of the RECORD HIGH FY 2009 budget passed by DEMOCRATS.

Fiscal Year 2012 starts in 38 days and the Democrat controlled Senate STILL has not passed a budget for FY 2012. What kind of FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, is that??

The newly seated [Jan 2011] Republicans in the House of Representatives that they now control, passed a FY 2012 budget back in Mar. 2011.

In fairness to the Democrat Senate, they DID vote down odrama's FY 2012 budget proposal 97-0. So you see Democrats and Republicans can agree when the issue is clearly one that MUST be stopped.

You couldn't make a down payment on "owning" me on the best day you ever dreamed.

 

Dude .. you are living in dreamland.

The 2008 Congress passed a budget proposed by Bush. Bush's budget.
The financial system was in dire straits and had to be supported .. TARP was the first part of that support.

Claiming that Bush is not responsible for his own budget is absurd.

I am a fiscal conservative .. you are not.

If you were you would have a better understanding of what you are talking about.

 

So let's stipulate that Bush ran up some big deficits and mismanaged the economy. So what are you saying then? That Bush made Obama turn a cold into pneumonia (fiscally speaking)? Arguing over Bush at this point is pretty
pointless when Obama's clueless spendthrift presidency overshadows any missteps Bush ever made.

Reagan inherited an awful economy. He turned it around with new policies.
Obama has simply made a bad mess much much worse.

 

odrama proposed a budget for FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012. NONE of those have been passed. WE, or the DEMOCRATS, have been operating without a passed budget for 1057 days now.

The president is required to submit a budget proposal by Feb the previous FY. CONGRESS is allowed to do what ever they wish to that budget.

FYI:

Funding for the government is provided by Congress under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution. This is the "purse strings power" and there are no exceptions to it.

October 2007: Democrats debate spending package

With President Bush threatening a veto of several appropriations bills, Democrats in the House and Senate announced plans to combine the legislation into one spending package, tying funding for education, job training and other social services with money for defense and veterans. Meanwhile, Republicans criticized the strategy, saying the Democrats were holding funding for defense and veterans hostage to pay for pork.

Bush signed the defense bill and vetoed health-labor bill

President Bush marked the sixth veto of his presidency by rejecting the health-labor bill. This $600 billion measure to fund education, job training and health programs, was about $10 billion more than what Bush had hoped for, adding to the fight with congressional Democrats over domestic spending. Bush, however, signed a separate bill to give the Pentagon about $460 billion for the fiscal year that began on October 1, even though he was disappointed the military bill had less money than he had sought. Democrats said that the extra funds were needed for programs like education and research on cancer and other diseases, but the money was dwarfed by the Iraq war costs instead. While the president complained that the bill was too expensive and larded with pork, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said Bush was "pretending" to protect the budget deficit while "asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq."

EVERYBODY HAD DOGS IN THAT FIGHT.

 

And the budgets for FY's 2010, 2011, and 2012, WHERE are they?? The president submitted his proposals on time. And I might also point out that the DEMOCRATS did not pass a budget for FY 2008 until AFTER the FY had begun. Bush submitted his proposal on time.

I encourage you to look this up:

"Funding for the government is provided by Congress under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution. This is the "purse strings power" and there are no exceptions to it."

 

look at the bright side.....gold has doubled under Obama......keep up the good work!

 

Reagan ran up huge debt and at the same time he got help from the economy.

You do not push a button and whammo .. the economy picks up .. most policies take many years to have an impact.

Cold into pnemonia ? A full blown Pandemic was already in place prior to Obama spending his first day in office. WTF are you talking about.

The Dow had dropped from 14,000 to 6500. How much worse can the situation get ?

Really .. I want a friggen answer if you are going to spout .. How much worse can the situation get ?

 

Congress can do nothing budgetary on its own. Suggesting that the Dem congress is solely responsible for budgets is not correct.

I stand by my numbers .. Military spending increased from roughly 400 Billion to 1 Trillion = 600 Billion under Bush. 2001-2009.

Revenue dropped from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.15 Trillion because of Bush's policies.

If you wish we can discuss the exact policies that led to the housing bubble and the legalization of speculative instruments that led to the financial crisis.

Then once we have discussed that .. you can suggest another option than the one taken.

The option TARP and Stimulus was fully bipartisan .. It had to be done to avoid total financial collapse of the USA ... depression .. and so forth.

Good companies were about to go under GE was calling the Fed asking for help because credit markets were "Frozen".

We can not operate our current system with Frozen credit markets.

Perhaps you are a survivalist that wishes to live in your cave and eat canned beans for a couple years ....

If not I suggest you thank your lucky stars that they managed to unfreeze the credit markets.

 

Yes .. and congress sis not want to pass the 2008 budget because it contained insane amounts of deficit spending.

Oh .. but we are at war and have to spend the money.

Are we going to now blame Congress for 2011 spending ?

Bush completely screwed the economy. He had both houses.. full control.

By the time the Dems got a bit of power back in 2007 the damage was already done.

Rumors were circulating around Washington and Wall Street as early as 2005 that Fannie and Freddy were insolvent.

This mess has zero to do with Obama.

 

Our debt needs to go up another 2 trillion with spending strictly for the middle class. The rich should get nothing ever again.

 

Excuses, excuses.

 

Who was in control of the House of Representatives from January 2007 till December 2010?

Stimulus bi-partisan? Your joking right?

Not a single House Republican voted for HR 1. Only 2 RINO's voted for it in the Senate.

He was also handed the dotcom bubble which burst in 2000 and he was also handed the 9/11 attacks which Clinton had 2 years to do something domestically about, but didn't. Someone had to secure the nation even if Clinton dropped the ball.

As the OP states, it too Obama 2 1/2 years to spend more than the time from 2001 to 2008.

I seriously doubt that. I think Bush was a mediocre President at best and a RINO I never voted for.

The Democrats always say that when they are about to lose big.

Why pretend your a conservative?

 

People who often have no credibility on matters often claim to be something different from what they are.

 

The President's Plan:

A. It's Bush's fault.
B. It's the Tea Party's fault.
C. It's the Republican's fault.
D. It's Washinton's fault and I've never really been there.
E. It's the fault of the American people. They don't deserve me.

I vote for "E". We don't deserve President Obama. He should be the governor of California to get some experience.

 

Reagan, and Bush, had the benefit of big increases in government employment during his recovery.

Obama has had government employment decline by about a million over the past year.

Conservatives are all for expanding government to help a recovery -- as long as it is their guy in office.

Bunch of hypocrites.

 

Amazing how for conservatives, the economy poor Bush received, which in its worst year had 3.4% growth and 1.1% real growth, excuses Bush for squandering a rare surplus budget, but the worst recession in 80 years Obama inherited doesn't matter.

Amazing how with all this, Bush came in for 9 months and did absolutely nothing about it. He was too busy ramming through tax cuts that mostly benefited the richest.

Because that is the Republicans number one priority.

 

Obama doesn't have a plan.He's merely Wingin' it.If he comes off his
vacation {remember won't rest until Every American wanting a job has one}
and submits an Outline then we know he just Bullcrapped.
An Outline isn't a plan.Some think Fed Chairman Bernacke is going to backdoor some Quantitative easing.Further devaluing the dollar.
Shovel ready jobs isn't the answer.Who's gonna pay for those jobs.
This Government is Broke.They can't fully meet their obligations now.
Until some brave Politician starts threatening to have Obama
Impeached for many abuses under his now " Dictatorship " this Country
is in near grave peril.

 

How much did it increase from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011? The net change is only a few hundred thousand since Obama took office. Nice cherry pick though.

Jan 2009 - 22,582,000 government workers.
Jul 2011 - 22,034,000 government workers.

That comes out to 548,000 NOT a million.

 

Speculation is the Godsend to liberals. "It would have been worse if we didn't act". "It would have been better if Bush didn't cut taxes". "If not for bad luck, we would have had job growth in the last quarter." If they can't get proper facts to back up their failed policies or disprove the rights WINNNING policies, they speculate.

 

What exactly did you expect Bush to do in 8 months (Inauguration had always been Jan 20th since 1933) that Clinton simply accomplish in 2 YEARS?

 

That's right. Reagan, and Bush, had the benefit of big increases in government employment during his recovery.

Obama has had government employment decline by about a million over the past year.

How do you figure Jan 2009-Jul 2011 is the "past year"?

 

The same thing Clinton accomplished. No terrorist attack on US soil. I'm not an expert in anti-terrorist operations. But putting the airports on alert after receiving specific warnings about attacks in DC and NY and aircraft would seem like a good start. But unlike Clinton, Bush did very little. He had a surplus budget he had to squander as a priority.

 

Of course my comments were rhetorical. It's not like I expected a real answer.

I just wanted to point out how the children who whine about "unfunded wars" support the funding of constitutional violations with OUR tax money, then call those violations "mandatory" spending. Those same violations of the Constitution are bleeding the tax payers dry! Constitutionally, the federal government only has the power to tax under Article 1, Section 8. That one sentience does not allow Democrat social engineering or wealth distribution schemes. Just where do Democrats get the POWER to fund their Progressive (progressing away from the Constitution) machinations? I guess THEY have the POWER because THEY say so!

If you can find the POWER let me know...

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

 

Are you making stuff up again, or are you wrong again?

1993 - The first World Trade Center bombing

Clinton practically ignored the first World Trade Center bombing (probably why you “forgot” about it) which directly led to the plot of 911 as the terrorists wanted another shot... Had Clinton pursued the War on Terror after the first World Trade Center bombing he probably would have prevented 911, but then he would not have had any "surplus" no matter how the books were kept.

 

Liberals rewrite unpleasant history in their diseased minds. That's why Clinton had no terror attacks and the Bush tax cuts benefited mostly the rich. Fact the rich got 18.92% of the tax cuts and the "rest" got 81.08% of the tax cut benefit.