Another Obama Record!… Four Straight Years of Trillion Dollar Deficits

Another Obama Record!… Four Straight Years of Trillion Dollar Deficits

Obama does it again !!

He continues to outperform everybody it seems.
(except during debates that is)

How will the Campaign explain this ?

Barack Obama is the first US president in history to run four straight years of trillion dollar deficits.
No one has come close to that record.

and that ain't all folks !

Barack Obama is the worst jobs president since the Great Depression.

Barack Obama owns the largest four deficits in history.

Barack Obama added $5 trillion to the US debt in just over three years – another record.

The GDP is sliding each quarter – this last quarter the GDP slid to 1.5%..................

It seems the facts are indisputable

This will not matter to the anybody. None of those politicians care about the national debt.

Unemployment just hit 7.8%

Now he should raise taxes on the rich so we can begin to pay down the debt, they have had it good for a decade,
time to pay up.

reply to post by campanionator


Tisk Tisk....

August 3, 2012

Today’s news that the unemployment rate moved up to 8.3 percent is as good of a time as time as any to revisit the promises the then-incoming administration made in 2009 regarding the economic stimulus bill. Back then they said the stimulus would have unemployment below 6 percent by now.

Not only that but they claimed that the unemployment would be at that 6 percent level now even if the stimulus bill was not passed. That is, that they predicted the economy would recover to that level naturally. In short, the White Houses projections regarding stimulus and the economy were wildly off.

Team Obama said in ’09 stimulus would have unemployment below 6% by 2012

related thread with proof in videos www.abovetopsecret.com...


plus the 7.8% may be tainted..... www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm sure you know all this already. It's no secret.

Will Obama EVER "own up" ?

(YouTube)

On July 3, 2008 -- the day before Independence Day -- Barack Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was irresponsible and "unpatriotic.

Obama: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

"Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic"

Take your pick, America has Officially turned it around

The nation’s jobless rate dropped to its lowest point in nearly four years in September. And unlike some recent declines, this one happened for the right reason: not because people gave up looking for a job, but because far more people reported having one.

It is a surprising improvement in a job market that had appeared listless in recent months. Although employers added a modest 114,000 jobs in September, the unemployment rate dropped sharply, from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, the government reported Friday.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Employers added a seasonally adjusted 114,000 jobs, a tepid pace that was accompanied by data revisions boosting the number of positions added in previous months by 86,000. The new figures showed that the nation added 181,000 jobs in July and 142,000 jobs in August, and that third-quarter job growth was far higher than in the spring.

online.wsj.com...

With just a month before the presidential election, the U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent in September, dipping below 8 percent for the first time since January 2009.

www.philly.com...

Numbers are an interesting animal.

www.barackobama.com...

The truth is, the President's supposed "spending binge" is nothing but a myth, repeatedly debunked by independent fact checkers. Federal spending growth has actually been slower under President Obama than under any other president since Dwight Eisenhower.

The question is who's tellling the truth?

Some more facts


articles.marketwatch.com...

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Here goes another one.

www.factcheck.org...

Is President Obama’s spending an “inferno,” as Mitt Romney claims, or a binge that “never happened” as an analysis touted by the White House concluded? We judge that both of those claims are wrong on the facts.

The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.

That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections.

The fact check article is very good. It goes in depth on how much actual spending Obama has done. And how much spending was instituted by Bush and Congress.
The inferno that romney claims is more like a sunday bbq at a large family reunion.

reply to post by grey580


Fact checking says in 2006 the Democrats seized power in the House, and the Senate YES?

Which means from 2006-2012 the majority of the debt is on them and Obama.

4 straight years of blaming the last guy instead of the current guy!

Another record.

Originally posted by grey580
Numbers are an interesting animal.

www.barackobama.com...

The truth is, the President's supposed "spending binge" is nothing but a myth, repeatedly debunked by independent fact checkers. Federal spending growth has actually been slower under President Obama than under any other president since Dwight Eisenhower.

The question is who's tellling the truth?

yes it makes perfect sense that the spending level Percentage Increases are that low for Obama.

after you max out all the credit and overspend like crazy, it's real easy to find small percentage increases !!

not much choice after devastating the budget.

but the real money amounts are the problem.

we all know that by now.

the fact remains he (and Congress) binged over a trillion dollars a year .....

that by itself is fiscally irresponsible.

anybody that overspends after revenue drops is crazy.

look at the three-fold deficit increase from 2008 to 2009.

who stole got all that money anyway ?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by grey580

 

Fact checking says in 2006 the Democrats seized power in the House, and the Senate YES?

Which means from 2006-2012 the majority of the debt is on them and Obama.

4 straight years of blaming the last guy instead of the current guy!

Another record.

You can't blame a president who was in office in 2008 for previous administration policies.

I understand it's a mix of issues. But to say that it's all Obama's fault all the way up to now. That's silly.

reply to post by xuenchen


Three fold increase?
Are you counting that he put the wars on the books.
And you're also counting in TARP to save the banks? btw which i didn't agree with. they should of failed.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough recently surprised me by identifying the culprit for the nation’s fiscal mess. “Let’s make no mistake about it right now: increasing this debt ceiling? This is George W. Bush and the Republican Party’s debt,” the former Republican congressman said. Scarborough added, “This is George W. Bush’s debt…. You can’t just put this on Barack Obama.”

With this in mind, note the chart the New York Times published over the weekend, using data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It identifies which administration, the current one or its predecessor, is more responsible for the increase in the nation’s debt. (click on the image for a larger view)

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

Originally posted by campanionator
Unemployment just hit 7.8%

Now he should raise taxes on the rich so we can begin to pay down the debt, they have had it good for a decade,
time to pay up.

Wow, you actually believe those numbers? It is so easy to cherry pick statistics to make the employment numbers look good. (but let me guess, if the numbers made things look good for the Republicans, you would scream manipulation)

Yes, it is time to change the tax code, time to eliminate loopholes for corporations....but it is also time to change the social entitlement structure that will really put the final nail in the American financial coffin (that is the 50+ trillion dollars that will have to be directed towards social programs if they are not changed)

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by grey580

 

Fact checking says in 2006 the Democrats seized power in the House, and the Senate YES?

Which means from 2006-2012 the majority of the debt is on them and Obama.

4 straight years of blaming the last guy instead of the current guy!

Another record.

You can't blame a president who was in office in 2008 for previous administration policies.

I understand it's a mix of issues. But to say that it's all Obama's fault all the way up to now. That's silly.

I agree blaming bush for the last 12 yeahs has been "silly".

reply to post by xuenchen


this thread is what happens when people dont understand exponential expansion,

i suggest you watch this video,
it explains expansion in a very easy way to understand how it works.

then you will realise how silly this thread is



question,
did the number of people in the usa grow in those four years?
did the monetary base increase in 4 years?

so your argument is moot if you understand the maths involved.

i see you just using this to discredit the president, (i neither support nor endorce)
without knowing anything about economics



xploder

Originally posted by grey580
Numbers are an interesting animal.

www.barackobama.com...

The truth is, the President's supposed "spending binge" is nothing but a myth, repeatedly debunked by independent fact checkers. Federal spending growth has actually been slower under President Obama than under any other president since Dwight Eisenhower.

The question is who's tellling the truth?

i wish the op would simply look at the math,
this is as simple as i can put this,

the growth in any doubling is greater than the total of all the preceding growth,

ie if you owe 7% or more interest on a debt, and pay nothing off the debt,
it will double in ten years.

your graph clearly shows obama has spent "less" new spending than everyone before him,
while still paying down previous debt

this thread is misinformed at best,
out right stupidity at worst

deny ignorance


xploder

Originally posted by campanionator
Unemployment just hit 7.8%

Now he should raise taxes on the rich so we can begin to pay down the debt, they have had it good for a decade,
time to pay up.

In my opinion of the Republicans want to send us back in time so badly we should increase the tax rate the wealthy pay to that of the 1950s. It's only fair.

reply to post by neo96


Silly me.
I guess Bush didn't do anything wrong.
Oh except commit treason and get us into a land war in Asia.
My bad.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by campanionator
Unemployment just hit 7.8%

Now he should raise taxes on the rich so we can begin to pay down the debt, they have had it good for a decade,
time to pay up.

In my opinion of the Republicans want to send us back in time so badly we should increase the tax rate the wealthy pay to that of the 1950s. It's only fair.

i second that,
in times of war the top teir of america have been asked to be patriots and pay 90-70% in taxes,
10 years of war and low taxes on those most able to bear the burdon the most the 1%

this shows me the war hawks dont want to pay for the wars and are not true patriots.

xploder