National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

Facts arent propaganda.

The little green line should be above the red line. Its called reality.....

 

Are you aware that you have just committed a crime?

 

Ah, gee the VAST majority of the federal budget (that for which the federal government spends money) was created by Democrats in violation of the Constitution, or without any constitutional authority whatsoever. The fact is FDR had to threaten the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" (catalyst for Democrat expansion of government) unconstitutional. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine."

Then it was an overwhelming Democrat Congress who in 1974 started the scheme of "Baseline Budgeting" (signed into law by Progressive President Nixon. who had very little use for the Constitution).

Baseline budgeting is a method of developing a budget which uses existing spending levels as the basis for establishing future funding requirements. The concept assumes that the organization is generally headed in the right direction and only minor changes in spending levels will be required. The baseline is normally enhanced by adding adjustment factors based on issues such as inflation, new programs, and anticipated changes to existing programs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseline_(budgeting)​

What Baseline budgeting does is guarantees built-in and practically automatic INCREASES in every line item expenditure by a hefty percentage EVERY year. Those increases are HEFTY since back in the 70's inflation was very high. Now that inflation is much lower those built in increases raise all government spending above INFLATION for EVERY line item.

When people in government talk about cuts they are really talking about making the scheduled GROWTH less, but not reducing spending. This screwy accounting was a gift of the Democrat party as well as all the “mandatory spending” (that’s what Democrats call it) on Democrat unconstitutional wealth distribution and social engineering schemes that are all scheduled to grow MORE THAN the GDP, sucking up all the tax money creating the need to run deficits.

To say "it was Ron George and George with their tax cuts that ran up the vast bulk of the debt" is a flat out lie! "Ron George and George" never got their budget passed as requested, by Congress. "Ron" had a large Democrat House that greatly added to each and every one of his budgets. George (Bush 40) had an entire Democrat Congress (House and Senate) that greatly added to each of his budgets, and FORCED him to raise taxes. George (Bush 43) had a Republican Congress, but did not have a filibuster proof Senate so many bills were never brought to the floor because of Democrat opposition. Again, George (Bush 43) had to fund mandatory Democrat violations of the Constitution AND defend the country, something Clinton refused to do as he REFUSED to fight the War on Terror. Of course George (Bush 43) ran deficits.

Democrat Obama has increased federal spending about 25% in two years and wants THAT increase to be part of the baseline forever!
Now what legitimate "points" do Democrats, or people on the Left have about who is creating the deficits and debt? Remember you can't go into debt until you buy something or spend money. Democrat violations of the Constitution eat up most of the federal budget and tax money, and they want MORE!

Republicans should not have to justify budget cuts. Democrats should have to justify huge budget INCREASES every year!

 

There are no excuses for Bush

 

Oh dear, the no true scotsman argument again.

Bush and his crew were clearly the most conservative gang of criminals ever to invest our government. Predictably their reign of tax cuts for the rich and regulation resulted in fiasco.

And how does the Rightwing Noise Machine respond: he wasn't conservative enough.

Conservatism is that philosophically bankrupt!

 

If that's what makes you feel better. Because everyone knows that you fix problems of the previous administration by making them worse.

 

LOL .. They approved Bush's Budget .. Congress is partially to blame for passing the Budget but to say Bush had nothing to do with his own budgete is laughable.

You lack understanding.

By the time Obama got into office revenues had fallen from 2.7 Trillion to 2.15Trillion (-550 Billion) because Bush screwed the economy so bad.

.

Bush was handed a balanced budget

Im not a big fan of the Dems but if you look at spending since Reagan .. the Cons have not been Fiscally conservative.

Religious right wingnuts have taken over .. These folks do not support the Constitution: Individual freedoms, liberty, and freedom from religion.

Yup .... they voted for the wars because Bush told them the US was in "immanent danger" and a bunch of other lies.

Total military spending increased from 3-400 Billion in 2000 to over a Trillion by the time Obama got in.

600 Billion in increased military spending and a decrease of 550 Billion in revenue = 1.15 Trillion in Bush debt.

Never in recent history has any president been left such a mess.

The only willfull disbelief is folks that try an deny that because of Bush military spending increased by over 600 Billion and income decreased by 550 Billion.

This alone is responsible for 1.15 Trillion in Deficit.

I agree that Obama has not done much .. but what would you have him do smartypants.

We would be in exactly the same position if McCain was President.

I call a spade a spade ..

2 simple points:

1) Military spending increased adding 600 Billion to spending

What is your solution?

2) Revenue declined from 2.7 -2.15 Trillion = 550 in lost revenue

What is your solution ?

 

Is this supposed to be an argument?

 

If you have nothing to contribute .. then why are you here ?

 

The fact is that 2009 spending is Bush ..

1) The Bush Budget goes until October 2009
2) Tarp and the Stimulus were a result of:

a: a housing bubble cause by Bush
b: a financial collapse caused by Bush

Republicans could have defeated the stimulus bill .. why didnt they ?

Answer: Because everone knew it had to be done to unfreeze the credit markets.

What do you suggest should have been done ?

 

Because I can be. Pointing out ignorance and inconsistencies is what I do best.

 

Then you are not real good at what you do best ! You have not pointed out one inconsistency or a point of ignorance.

 

Who said I was trying to? It's the same old cycle. Someone blames Bush, I correct them on their inaccuracies. It's getting old and I've given up on doing that a long time ago. Now most of the time when I see someone complain about Bush, I just say "excuses, excuses."

It's been three years. That age old excuse is tired and it's apparent you're willing to use it all the way to Obama's re-election. 2012 will be a three man race once again: Obama, generic Republican opponent, and George Bush.

 

If I tried to make an argument against silly excuses, it wouldn't be much of an argument.

 

Libs are out of ideas.

Obama really thought he could bring back the economy and now he is stuck.

Going back to 2008 and blaming Bush is all they know.

 

Your post is FICTION, a kinder, gentler way to say, A LIE!

"Republicans could have defeated the stimulus bill .. why didnt they ?"

The House passed the Stimulus 244 yea, 177 nay. The nays were ALL 177 Republicans voting [2 did not vote] and 11 Democrats voted nay. NO Republicans voted yea.

The Senate voted 61 yea, 37 nay. [1 not voting] The yea votes were ALL Democrats and 3 Republicans [one became a Democrat later]

So please tell the world how the Republicans could have stopped the Stimulus.

The make up of that Congress[the 111th] was House Dems 254, GOP 178
[218 needed to pass a bill]

Senate Dems 56 + 2 independents, GOP 41.
[51 needed to pass a bill]

If you insist on posting, learn something, anything, about your government and its past and recent history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FY 2009 budget was FINALLY* passed by a Democrat controlled CONGRESS. Democrats took TOTAL control of both Houses of CONGRESS in Jan 2007 and held control until Jan 2011.
* Passed after the FY 2009 began.

DEMOCRATS could have defeated the FY 2009 budget, WHY didn't they?

Bush did not cause the housing bubble. Everyone that knows ANYTHING, knows that. He did NOT do enough to stop it, but he didn't cause it.

The financial collapse was caused partly by the housing collapse and partly by the same forces that caused the housing collapse.


TARP and the STIMULUS were caused by Democrat control of both Houses of CONGRESS.

 

Like I said .. you have not pointed out any inconsistencies or inaccuracies.

If you have "given up" then why are you still here ?

I blamed Bush for 2009 spending .. Obama has not done what needs be done since then IMO.

 

As my dear ol' granny used to tell me, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." I guess that's sspecially true when the sow ain't cooperating, eh?

 

Because I can be. Whenever someone is talking about Obama, there is bound to be someone using Bush as a distraction.

Bush was President in 2009? Oh right, more excuses.

 

Another Leftist Lie!

Democrats created the CRA.

Democrat Clinton changed the CRA so banks had to show REAL loans in REAL risky neighborhoods.

Democrats unconstitutionally created Freddie and Fannie (to manipulate the housing market) who at one point owned about HALF of all mortgages in the US.

Democrat Clinton ordered Freddie and Fannie to greatly expand their low to moderate income holding in the 2000 Affordable Housing Goals.

Democrats blew up the housing market like an overinflated balloon with cheep loans directed at those with bad credit. OF course the balloon popped. Did I mention even Obama is personally responsible as he helped sue Citibank for not making risky loans? Democrat social engineering and wealth distribution schemes are to blame for the crash as Democrats coerced and enticed banks to make risky loans to high risk low income borrowers who tend to vote Democrat.

Stop spreading Leftist LIES! Democrats and their constitutional violations were responsible for it all!

 

Let me save you some time. Liberal response: Bush's fault.

 

Answer: Because everone knew it had to be done to unfreeze the credit markets.

What do you suggest should have been done ?

If you are going to call something a fiction .. at least address the post.

"Republicans could have defeated the stimulus bill .. why didnt they ?"

The vote was 60 to 38

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...kage-but-without-the-bipartisanship-he-sought

60 votes were needed in the Senate for the bill to pass .. Republicans gave just as many as was needed .. and no more.

Everyone with economic intelligence knew it had to be passed. The fact that there were only exactly enough to pass is just politics.

Looks like it is you that needs to learn a thing or two

There were rumors in Washington in 2005 that Freddie and Fannie were insolvent.

The housing bubble was caused by easy money policy and lax regulation and the creation of "Collateralized Debt Obligations" at the retail level.

The financial collapse was caused by making speculative instruments that had been made illegal back in the 1930's, because they caused financial collapse, legal again. These included CDO's and Credit default swaps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/a-nation-of-village-idiot_b_127340.html

It was not until 2003 that retail level transactions became legal. This is when banks started giving loans to folks with no credit and no job because they could sell the loan into a CDO, make a profit, and not be responsible the loan anymore.

These were the financial "weapons of mass destruction" spoken of by Warren Buffet that led to the financial collapse.

One of these weapons was the Credit Default Swap which allowed investors to make bets (buy insurance) on the CDO without owning the underlying asset.

A 1000 dollar CDS would get you 100,000 dollars worth of insurance against the bankruptcy of a CDO full of bad paper that was guaranteed to go bankrupt.

AIG was one of the sellers of this insurance so when the housing market blew up they were on the hook for 100 X the premium on all the CDS's.

There are more complexities to the financial collapse but this should give you a general idea.

The president is probably far too removed to know what was happening but it was his administration that continued to relax regulations that were responsible for the Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction that caused the housing bubble and subsequent financial collapse.

 

The financial collapse was caused by the housing bubble busting. That was caused by Democrats forcing and enticing banks to lower loan standards so they loaned to high risk low income borrows who tend to vote Democrat. All of what you wrote had nothing to do with the housing market. They all DEPENDED on the housing market as their UNDERLINING investment. You are making the argument that bets on a race or sporting event somehow determines the result of the contest. Had Democrats not pumped up the housing market until it collapsed none of the underlining investments would have collapsed. The Democrats and Democrat constitutional violations are to blame, pure and simple.

 

My, My my you silly child. 51 votes, a simple majority are needed to pass a bill. 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture.

Address the post? I was addressing every line of your post. and in this post you both make errors [60 votes] and contradict your earlier post that Bush caused the housing collapse and financial collapse.

Otherwise you post leftist rubbish garnered from radical leftist rags like huffpost.

And I note that you were unwilling or unable to spin the fact that the Budget for FY 2009 WAS PASSED by Democrats CONTROLLING BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.. WHY didn't they defeat it?

 

Swamper .. save your opinions .. try posting some facts you can validate.