Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’

Redress said:

I am puzzled about all this. President Obama says something the right disagrees with, and he is attacked for it. President Obama says something the right agree with, and he is attacked for it. Why would we even bother listening to those on the right these days? Get back to us when you have something constructive to say.

Click to expand...

What is the right agreeing with and who are you defining as "the right"?

Redress said:

I am puzzled about all this. President Obama says something the right disagrees with, and he is attacked for it. President Obama says something the right agree with, and he is attacked for it. Why would we even bother listening to those on the right these days? Get back to us when you have something constructive to say.

Click to expand...

You're being disingenuous.

Or have you forgotten that Dear Leader's spending is the problem of which he so fecklessly speaks?

Or do you wish to ignore the trillions upon trillions of debt his agenda calls for?

His budget agenda would conservatively add $9.3 trillion over ten years to the debt he calls unsustainable. At the rate his current administration is adding to the public debt, he will add that amount in a single term of office.

I do not attack Dear Leader for saying the debt is unsustainable. I attack Dear Leader for his unsustainable debt.

TheNextEra said:

You can make all the comments you like, but you excusing Bush is excusing Obama for the same thing.

Either it is irrespnsible or it isn't.

Click to expand...

It's irresponsible either way. But the sheer scale of Obama's version of it, compared to Bush's, could choke a rhino.

TheNextEra said:

So what now? Elect a Republican again who will be just as irresponsible as the last? Or a Dem the same?

Click to expand...

Frankly, the best thing now would be for the tea party movement to evolve into a full-fledged anti-incumbency movement.

Vote out all 535 Congressmen and Senators.

Vote out Dear Leader.

Vote in candidates willing to, among other things, back term limits for Congress, a requirement the budget be balanced EVERY year, with a proviso that deficit budgets must be approved by a supermajority of 75% of both Houses of Congress.

Vote in candidates that are willing to confront the sobering fiscal realities of the entitlement monstrosity that Congress has given us--compassion for one's neighbor is all well and good, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans when there's no money to pay the bills.

Vote in candidates that are willing to commit to a serious foreign policy, one which does not politicize international crises to curry votes in the home district.

And if the candidates so voted in fail to deliver the goods, vote them out in two years and vote in new ones until we get a crop that will deliver.

Harshaw said:

It's irresponsible either way. But the sheer scale of Obama's version of it, compared to Bush's, could choke a rhino.

Click to expand...

More excuses for your party.

celticlord said:

You're being disingenuous.

Or have you forgotten that Dear Leader's spending is the problem of which he so fecklessly speaks?

Or do you wish to ignore the trillions upon trillions of debt his agenda calls for?

His budget agenda would conservatively add $9.3 trillion over ten years to the debt he calls unsustainable. At the rate his current administration is adding to the public debt, he will add that amount in a single term of office.

I do not attack Dear Leader for saying the debt is unsustainable. I attack Dear Leader for his unsustainable debt.

Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between short term and long term debt. It remains to be seen what president Obama will do about the debt issue. So far, 4 months into his administration, we are still in the realm of "short term".

None of this changes the fact that president Obama said something you agree with, and you use it to start one of your handful of bitch threads for today.

celticlord said:

Vote out all 535 Congressmen and Senators.

Vote out Dear Leader.

Vote in candidates willing to, among other things, back term limits for Congress, a requirement the budget be balanced EVERY year, with a proviso that deficit budgets must be approved by a supermajority of 75% of both Houses of Congress.

Vote in candidates that are willing to confront the sobering fiscal realities of the entitlement monstrosity that Congress has given us--compassion for one's neighbor is all well and good, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans when there's no money to pay the bills.

Vote in candidates that are willing to commit to a serious foreign policy, one which does not politicize international crises to curry votes in the home district.

And if the candidates so voted in fail to deliver the goods, vote them out in two years and vote in new ones until we get a crop that will deliver.

Click to expand...

Well so far we agree fully. I think the only thing we might disagree in is the "what constitutes a serious foreign policy", I don't want another Bush to get us into a two front war that we haven't completed yet.

My question is could you vote in a fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal candidate? I would in a heartbeat.

TheNextEra said:

More excuses for your party.

Click to expand...

Hardly. Obama's first-year deficit is more than all of the Bush deficits combined. Degree does indeed matter. It's completely unprecedented.

The Republicans were reckless. Obama's driving drunk.

Harshaw said:

Hardly. Obama's first-year deficit is more than all of the Bush deficits combined. Degree does indeed matter. It's completely unprecedented.

The Republicans were reckless. Obama's driving drunk.

Click to expand...

Obama inherited Bush's mess. Obama handled it the wrong way yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Bush has a surplus. Obama had a defecit.

Not excusing Obama either, but Bush was handed a different coin than Obama.

Both are bad IMO.

The cost of both wars combined is roughly 870 Billion dollars since 2001.
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War <--you can thank a lefty Obama supporter for the link.

Just keep that in mind the next time you see someone say "well the wars cost"(whats funny is they try to only use Iraq) in defense/response to Obama's massive spending.

Also remember 8 months ago when then candidate Obama and his supporters where running on a platform of "lowering spending and fiscal responsibility."


2010 get rid of as many of his rubberstamp supporters in Congress as possible. 2012 throw him out of office.
That will help the US economy more then anything else.

TheNextEra said:

Obama inherited Bush's mess. Obama handled it the wrong way yes, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Bush has a surplus. Obama had a defecit.

Not excusing Obama either, but Bush was handed a different coin than Obama.

Both are bad IMO.

Click to expand...

Now THAT'S excuse-making. A deficit which quadruples the last one, and a $3.2 trillion budget, is entirely a choice.

Triad said:

The cost of both wars combined is roughly 870 Billion dollars since 2001.
Just keep that in mind the next time you see someone say "well the wars cost"(whats funny is they try to only use Iraq) in defense/response to Obama's massive spending.

Click to expand...

the Difference, right or wrong, Obama was spending on the U.S. economy, not Iraq.

Bush gave a rats ass about the U.S. economy as he was spending in Iraq.

TheNextEra said:

My question is could you vote in a fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal candidate? I would in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

Most likely. Depends on the social liberalism in question. Gay marriage is not a sticking point for me. Abortion would be something of a sticking point. Drug legalization is something I support.

What I personally would not support is anything that expands the welfare state or entitlements; those need to be trimmed and in most cases eliminated entirely. Government is a poor guarantor of security, and people need to not look to government as their protector against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That's an expensive luxury no nation can afford indefinitely.

Show me a tightwad small government type who is socially liberal and you have someone who has a fighting chance for my vote.

Harshaw said:

Now THAT'S excuse-making. A deficit which quadruples the last one, and a $3.2 trillion budget, is entirely a choice.

Click to expand...

Hmm saying both were wrong is making an excuse ok. Whatever get's you hard I guess.

Although I agree with Obama on saying the current debt cannot be sustained in the long run, I disagree with the way he's handling the situation. I don't understand how it's smart to spend borrowed money in the way he does, but maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand.

celticlord said:

Most likely. Depends on the social liberalism in question. Gay marriage is not a sticking point for me. Abortion would be something of a sticking point. Drug legalization is something I support.

What I personally would not support is anything that expands the welfare state or entitlements; those need to be trimmed and in most cases eliminated entirely. Government is a poor guarantor of security, and people need to not look to government as their protector against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That's an expensive luxury no nation can afford indefinitely.

Show me a tightwad small government type who is socially liberal and you have someone who has a fighting chance for my vote.

Click to expand...

Well let's see if there is a compromise here and now.

I want a fiscally conservative candidate not only for the people, but for corporate as well. If corporates risk their capital on high risk people than they risk the fact they can't get back their capital.

I want someone that is open to gay marriage. I had a brother that was gay and with his partner for 35 years and could not marry before he died. I will continue to fight for that.

Abortion rights, I want a candidate that at the very least will support states rights and support someone of another state going to another state that allows abortion to be legal. I don't care if there are only two states in the U.S. that allow it I want that to be a right to go to those states that allow it.

I want a president that will not see the American Budget and decide we can go to war because we can afford it. I want to go to war because it is right, just, and not based upon hearsay information from other governments.

Can we agree on that?

TheNextEra said:

Hmm saying both were wrong is making an excuse ok. Whatever get's you hard I guess.

Click to expand...

Strangely enough, this is exactly what you said to me -- I said they were both wrong, yet somehow, according to you, I was making excuses.

If you can't keep track of what you say, that's not my problem.

Redress said:

There is a significant difference between short term and long term debt. It remains to be seen what president Obama will do about the debt issue. So far, 4 months into his administration, we are still in the realm of "short term".

None of this changes the fact that president Obama said something you agree with, and you use it to start one of your handful of bitch threads for today.

Click to expand...

None of this changes the fact that his spending plans call for trillions of new debt this year, next year, and into the foreseeable future.

None of this changes the fact that his LONG TERM spending plans call for debt, more debt, piled upon still more debt.

None of this changes the fact that his deficit spending plans ARE the "unsustainable debt" of which he speaks.

None of this changes the fact that he has as much credibility on fiscal restraint as a practicing prostitute on the virtues of celibacy.

I do agree with what he said. I do not agree with the actions that make his commitment to what he said a shameful, disgraceful, baldfaced lie.

Harshaw said:

Strangely enough, this is exactly what you said to me -- I said they were both wrong, yet somehow, according to you, I was making excuses.

If you can't keep track of what you say, that's not my problem.

Click to expand...

No you were trying to say OBama is much worse. Given what he inherited compared to Bush, I don't think it is worse. I think is is the same. If Obama had inherited the same as Bush it would have been less.

you want it to be worse. Sorry I disagree.

TheNextEra said:

Well let's see if there is a compromise here and now.

I want a fiscally conservative candidate not only for the people, but for corporate as well. If corporates risk their capital on high risk people than they risk the fact they can't get back their capital.

I want someone that is open to gay marriage. I had a brother that was gay and with his partner for 35 years and could not marry before he died. I will continue to fight for that.

Abortion rights, I want a candidate that at the very least will support states rights and support someone of another state going to another state that allows abortion to be legal. I don't care if there are only two states in the U.S. that allow it I want that to be a right to go to those states that allow it.

I want a president that will not see the American Budget and decide we can go to war because we can afford it. I want to go to war because it is right, just, and not based upon hearsay information from other governments.

Can we agree on that?

Click to expand...

Potentially. Final call would come down to the actual candidates themselves, but I would not be distressed if such a candidate was the best in the field.

celticlord said:

None of this changes the fact that his spending plans call for trillions of new debt this year, next year, and into the foreseeable future.

None of this changes the fact that his LONG TERM spending plans call for debt, more debt, piled upon still more debt.

None of this changes the fact that his deficit spending plans ARE the "unsustainable debt" of which he speaks.

None of this changes the fact that he has as much credibility on fiscal restraint as a practicing prostitute on the virtues of celibacy.

I do agree with what he said. I do not agree with the actions that make his commitment to what he said a shameful, disgraceful, baldfaced lie.

Click to expand...

Then let him show how he is going to change things. Less than four months in office, with 2 wars, an economic meltdown, and all that is involved in learning the job. I absolutely agree that bringing down the debt is a key item that needs to be done. I have been saying that since President Reagan was in office. So far the debt has gone up under every president I believe, and I have been disappointed. I might be disappointed this time, but I am at least going to wait and see if Obama proposes a fix, and what that fix is, before I get upset.

celticlord said:

Potentially. Final call would come down to the actual candidates themselves, but I would not be distressed if such a candidate was the best in the field.

Click to expand...

Ok I posted your comments I'm curious about in bold. What is the game breaker positions for a candidate to get your vote. I've postd mine, what are yours?

TheNextEra said:

Irresponsible spending is irresponsible no matter the amount or person.

Bush did it getting us into Iraq and now Obama did it with the bailouts. Both are wrong.

However, in 2004 Republicans CHOSE irresponsible spending.

Click to expand...

6 years with Republican majority, 2 years Democrat majority, 2 wars, 1 major natural disaster, and 1 Democrat housing law to get us into this kind of debt vs. 6 weeks to double the amount of spending and that doesn't count Bush taking the fall for Obama when he asked him if Obama wanted him to sign off on the second half of the TARP money in his last weeks.

The 2007 - 2009 Democrats CHOSE to spend not only the extra TARP cash that Bush handed him without media emo-rage (the later bailouts far surpassed that) but to also initiate MASSIVE healthcare and energy spending plans as well as other pork projects during a recession. Lets not forget that Afghanistan is the "good" war which Obama has repeated campaigned in favor of continuing. Now he's stuck with it as Iraq (a victory) is winding down.

Keorythe said:

6 years with Republican majority, 2 years Democrat majority, 2 wars, 1 major natural disaster, and 1 Democrat housing law to get us into this kind of debt vs. 6 weeks to double the amount of spending and that doesn't count Bush taking the fall for Obama when he asked him if Obama wanted him to sign off on the second half of the TARP money in his last weeks.

The 2007 - 2009 Democrats CHOSE to spend not only the extra TARP cash that Bush handed him without media emo-rage (the later bailouts far surpassed that) but to also initiate MASSIVE healthcare and energy spending plans as well as other pork projects during a recession. Lets not forget that Afghanistan is the "good" war which Obama has repeated campaigned in favor of continuing. Now he's stuck with it as Iraq (a victory) is winding down.

Click to expand...

All spending is done in good name to what the powers that be want. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't make either side innocent.

It sounds like you are trying to make excuses for the Bush team, is that so? I'm not, both sides are at fault. Each side that abuses the dorr, opens it further. Obama opened it further than Bush, Bush opened it further than Clinton, Clinton opened it further than Bush Sneior, Bush Senior opened it further than Regan, the list goes on and on.

Irresponsible spending is irresponsible no matter the amount, it seems you are trying to excuse the spending of Bush Junior because it was smaller.

TheNextEra said:

Ok I posted your comments I'm curious about in bold. What is the game breaker positions for a candidate to get your vote. I've postd mine, what are yours?

Click to expand...

Game breakers?

Fiscally, they have to commit to a balanced budget every year. No more ticky tack BS about balancing it in the future.

Socially, they have to end this insane war on drugs. A fiscally conservative candidate who is anti-drug legalization will not get my vote unless he's the only fiscally conservative candidate out there.

Gay marriage is one where I tend to split the baby: I want government to get the hell out of marriage regulation entirely. Someone who wants to eliminate marriage licenses gets my vote over someone who merely endorses gay marriage. Civil unions for all, in other words. However, that's pretty much at the bottom of the list on issues I'm going to care about.

On abortion, I want to see two things: 1) overturn that legal abomination known as Roe v Wade. That stands as the most badly decided Supreme Court case since Dred Scott v Sanford, and it's an embarrassment to jurisprudence. 2) A resolution attaching personhood at conception, so that abortion is recognized as the willful termination of human life. Let the argument proceed from there as to whether the practice should be sustained or not. However, abortion is a show stopper only if the candidate wants to continue the practice country wide by sustaining Roe v Wade.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you about wars. They're a bloody business and should be fought sparingly--although I have a hard time figuring Bush was anything worse than premature on Iraq. It needed to be done, but he could have waited another year to do it.