Obama: ‘We Don’t Have an Urgent Deficit Crisis’

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AlienScience

 

Must push Administration lies at all costs.

The national debt was $10 trillion when Obama took over.

The national debt has consistently increased every year.

It now standing at $17 trillion.

How the hell has the deficit shrank ?

What's the lie?

I gave you information and you are refusing to accept it. If you have contradicting information, I would love to see it, but you don't seem willing or able to provide it.

So instead, you respond with a silly gif and an insult?

EDIT TO RESPOND TO YOUR EDIT:
I never said the debt went down, just the deficit. I never said the deficit was wiped out, just decreased. As long as there is a deficit, then the debt will increase.

I think the issue is that you don't understand the topic. I hate to sound harsh, but you should really understand what you are talking about before you start to insult others.

reply to post by AlienScience


I agree someone is refusing information that was given to them.

Too quick on the reply as it was being edited.

The post


So what part of money is being spent with no way to replace is is someone missing ?

That creates both debts and deficits.

Neither one have shrank.

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Your chart includes 2009 under Obama, and that is not correct.

The 2009 budget and spending was all appropriated under Bush.

Wrong ...

the FY2009 budget was passed by the Democratic Congress and not signed by Bush.

Obama signed that in March 2009.

Look it up.

reply to post by neo96


I think what he's trying to say is the God-King Obama has reduced how much is being spent per year.

reply to post by neo96


I have a silly question/comment.

If the debt/deficit isn't in crisis, then why not just increase the debt by continuing spending, and cut taxes?

Just cut taxes if it isn't a crisis.

Give the people more money.

Why is that so hard?

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
reply to post by neo96

 

I think what he's trying to say is the God-King Obama has reduced how much is being spent per year.

edit on 8/23/13 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)

He hasn't that is the entire point.

Debt ceiling limit increases increases the amount of government spending.

We are now currently spending more than the last guy.

reply to post by neo96

A healthcare program that was cheaper before you came along, children were being taken care of, and this nation was trillions less in debt.

You are joking right? People couldn't afford to go to the doctors and quite a few of them that did went bankrupt from the medical bills. Did you overlook the never ending war on terror? That really helped with the trillions in debt.

Anyone under the age of 26 is already covered on their mommy and daddies insurance, well of course that is if they still have a job, or hell they just may be working part time.

Still at home when they are 26? They having issues growing up? If they are working one part time job then they have time to work another.

As most people have already seen quite a few employers have been cutting full time jobs to part time.

Yes seeing how the insurance companies are screwing over the companies the companies have to in turn screw someone over guess who that is? The companies save money both on insurance and employee wages.

Then how about stop forcing them to buy corporate products. Stop regulating them in to the poverty state, but nope always them evil Republicans fault.

The Republicans are the ones that wanted the single payer mandate. They wrote it and backed it until it became part of Obamacare then they cried it's unconstitutional.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96

 

I have a silly question/comment.

If the debt/deficit isn't in crisis, then why not just increase the debt by continuing spending, and cut taxes?

Just cut taxes if it isn't a crisis.

Give the people more money.

Why is that so hard?

Because he raised taxes to mitigate government spending.

If he cuts those taxes 'deficits' will increase, and government spending will continue to increase.

They are going to increase anyway because more people are getting more tax revenue back from government than they are paying to government.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Your chart includes 2009 under Obama, and that is not correct.

The 2009 budget and spending was all appropriated under Bush.

Wrong ...

the FY2009 budget was passed by the Democratic Congress and not signed by Bush.

Obama signed that in March 2009.

Look it up.

Most of the first year of the next presidents term of office is still on the budget of the previous administration.

reply to post by xuenchen


Obama also could have chosen not to spend as much, in several points of 2009 and onward. It's amazing how some folks don't recall, isn't it? I imagine you recall this one.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President-elect Barack Obama made his case Monday to Congress for the release of $350 billion in remaining federal bailout funds.

News that Obama was seeking the funds came just hours after Bush, speaking at his last regular White House press conference, said Obama hadn't made any request for the funds.

"I told him that if he felt he needed the $350 billion, I would be willing to ask for it," Bush said Monday.

Source

He couldn't wait to spend more money and you're right. Obama signed the budget. Congress passed it .....and sadly, it was the last budget passed, as such, in this nation.

It would be REAL nice to have another budget some day, wouldn't it? Living on spending bills and the other assortment of little games they've played since 2009, so there are no firm lines for anyone to have to color INSIDE of for spending, is getting real bad for us.

That, of course, was before Porkulus and the other unbelievably high spending bills. I still recall how the 700 Billion Bush demanded for TARP just about gave everyone a heart attack at the time. Their actual stated logic, with a straight face, was that they just wanted a 'really big number' to cover the financial crisis. Now, we run 900+ Billion ANNUAL deficits on JUST On-Budget spending and the man says we don't have issues.

As if financially dying a little slower is supposed to be a thing we should thank him for. We're only DOWN from the deficits HE set initial records with anyway.

reply to post by buster2010

You are joking right? People couldn't afford to go to the doctors and quite a few of them that did went bankrupt from the medical bills. Did you overlook the never ending war on terror? That really helped with the trillions in debt.

Newsflash healthcare costs HAVE INCREASED under Obama specifically from Obama care.

I am missing the 'affordable' part here as well as millions of other Americans.

I see someone willfully ignored THIS POST

Haven't overlooked the never ending war on poverty that has now has more people broke, and destute, and dependent upon government than the entire history of this country.

Still at home when they are 26? They having issues growing up? If they are working one part time job then they have time to work another.

Some people are having issues growing up when they expect government to pay for their existence, and be their mommy's, and daddies.

Yes seeing how the insurance companies are screwing over the companies the companies have to in turn screw someone over guess who that is? The companies save money both on insurance and employee wages.

From where i sit is Obama and his party who is doing the screwing people over forcing them to buy insurance. They have a long tradition of doing that.

The Republicans are the ones that wanted the single payer mandate. They wrote it and backed it until it became part of Obamacare then they cried it's unconstitutional.

Oh really?

Do tell then why did none of them vote for what they 'wrote'.

Love that blame the Republicans no matter what.

Obama, and his party are never responsible for anything in this country.

Par for the course.

reply to post by buster2010

Most of the first year of the next presidents term of office is still on the budget of the previous administration.

True in many cases.

But not under Bush's last year in office.

Democrats controlled all committees in both Chambers from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011.

The Senate and House are not part of the Executive Branch Administration.

Bush said he would not sign the FY2009 'budget', and he didn't.

reply to post by buster2010


Submitted by Bush, signed by Obama...five months into the fiscal year.

Neo, what level of deficit/surplus would you consider to be not in crisis? The way I understand conservative economics; any deficit spending is "too much" deficit spending.

reply to post by neo96

They are going to increase anyway because more people are getting more tax revenue back from government than they are paying to government.

B-I-N-G-O

And Obama isn't addressing THAT is HE

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by buster2010

 

Submitted by Bush, signed by Obama...five months into the fiscal year.

Neo, what level of deficit/surplus would you consider to be not in crisis? The way I understand conservative economics; any deficit spending is "too much" deficit spending.

The government should be net neutral neither running surplus's or deficits.

I call $17 trillion to be a crisis.

I call $ 120 trillion owed to those programs people can't live without to be a crisis.

The Government does not exist to fund our existence.

That is the sum of good government to get the hell off our backs, stop making us by corporate products. and get the hell off business' back, and let American's do what we do.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Your chart includes 2009 under Obama, and that is not correct.

The 2009 budget and spending was all appropriated under Bush.

Wrong ...

the FY2009 budget was passed by the Democratic Congress and not signed by Bush.

Obama signed that in March 2009.

Look it up.

The budget signed in March 2009 is for Fiscal Year 2010, which is October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. So yes, Fiscal Year 2009 is still under Bush.

Fiscal years do not follow calendar years, here is some information about it.

useconomy.about.com...

reply to post by xuenchen

And Obama isn't addressing THAT is HE

Only people I see talking about it are those Bloody evil Republicans, and us 'evil conservatives' here on ATS.

Others continue to make excuses for government fuzzy math.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by buster2010

 

Submitted by Bush, signed by Obama...five months into the fiscal year.

Neo, what level of deficit/surplus would you consider to be not in crisis? The way I understand conservative economics; any deficit spending is "too much" deficit spending.

Wrong AGAIN !!!

the FY2009 was passed by Congress (full Dem control) after they chopped and channeled the original White House proposals.

Bush refused to sign it.

Obama loved it and increased from then on.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AlienScience

 

I agree someone is refusing information that was given to them.

Too quick on the reply as it was being edited.

The post


So what part of money is being spent with no way to replace is is someone missing ?

That creates both debts and deficits.

Neither one have shrank.

edit on 23-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

The DEFICIT has decreased each year Obama has been in office...again, this is fact...I don't know how else to explain this to you.

Here, more information for you...please take the time to read it and understand it.

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Your chart includes 2009 under Obama, and that is not correct.

The 2009 budget and spending was all appropriated under Bush.

Wrong ...

the FY2009 budget was passed by the Democratic Congress and not signed by Bush.

Obama signed that in March 2009.

Look it up.

The budget signed in March 2009 is for Fiscal Year 2010, which is October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. So yes, Fiscal Year 2009 is still under Bush.

Fiscal years do not follow calendar years, here is some information about it.

useconomy.about.com...

Wrong AGAIN !!!

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress.

The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.

The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

FY2009


Bush refused to sign it !!