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

Truth Detector · May 15, 2009

TheNextEra said:
It's all about opening doors though. If Bush opened the door further, than Obama is going to open it further, etc.

It's a trend that should not have been started and Bush bailing out started a lot of the ****.

That doesn't excuse Obama, but again a door opened means a door can be opened further.

I don't care who started it, I care who will do the right thing and close the door. Just because Bush spent less doesn't make his failure better because Obama spent more and it doesn't make the failure of the presidents before them that did the same thing any better.

It doesn't matter who started it, only matters who will end such idiotic spending. So far Democrats have proven themselves inadequate, and Republicans have proven themselves to be inadequate.

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

I find such uninformed bile comedic; the ONLY reason for all the spending done during Bush's Administration was primarily due to the catastrophic events of 9-11, fighting a war in Afghanistan, fighting a war in Iraq and the catastrophic events of New Orleans.

Yet even with ALL this spending, while Republicans were in charge the deficit which was caused primarily due to the above events and had reached a mere $300 billion at its peak, was actually going down and was below $200 billion when Democrats took over in 2006. The acceleration since then has been frightening to any with a brain.

But alas, let us not focus on the criminal irresponsibility of the Democrats; let us continue the asinine whining about George W. Bush; a man who dared to do what he said he would, a man who dared to have massive bi-partisan support in the congress and a man who dared to fight the asinine attempts of the DNC to disenfranchise the voters of Florida.

:rofl

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

I think this illustrates my points and the fantastically laughable hypocrisy of Obama quite well.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc"]YouTube - The National Debt Road Trip[/ame]

Truth Detector · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
I think this illustrates my points and the fantastically laughable hypocrisy of Obama quite well.

YouTube - The National Debt Road Trip

THIS video is priceless; I love the ending. :2wave:

American · May 15, 2009

celticlord said:
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable? (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Talk about cluelessness. If Dear Leader weren't spending so damn much, he wouldn't have to borrow so damn much.

Instead of all those Constitutional law courses he slept through at Harvard, he should have taken a basic class on how to balance a checkbook. Then he'd at least have some clue as to what the problem is.

If Dear Leader wants to solve the problem of deficit spending, here's a simple suggestion:

STOP SPENDING!

Who's he giving all that advice to about not borrowing from China? I hope he was talking to the guy that watches him shave. For crying out loud, is he for real?

obvious Child · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
Yeah. Doesn't matter that the Obama deficit for '09 by itself is as big or bigger than ALL THE BUSH DEFICITS COMBINED. You still can't criticize Obama for it. It's still all the Republicans' fault.

Such is the "reality" suggested by everyone's favorite centrist.

That's only if you think that 2 trillion is less than 1.8 trillion. Sure it's bad, but you're still wrong that the '09 Obama deficit is more than Bush's combined deficit. And given how Bush added around $5 trillion to the debt, there's no way that Obama's $1.8 trillion is more than that.

And the whole notion that projections actually mean anything is ridiculous. TD is correct in saying that CBO projections require suspension of disbelief to accept. Anyone who's done a financial forecast knows just how much Voodoo they are using in projecting anything more than a few years.

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

obvious Child said:
That's only if you think that 2 trillion is less than 1.8 trillion. Sure it's bad, but you're still wrong that the '09 Obama deficit is more than Bush's combined deficit. And given how Bush added around $5 trillion to the debt, there's no way that Obama's $1.8 trillion is more than that.

OK, fine. :roll: Accepting your numbers at face value, best case scenario -- Obama's first-year deficit is slightly less than all of Bush's deficits combined.

Woo-hoo!

obvious Child · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
OK, fine. :roll: Accepting your numbers at face value, best case scenario -- Obama's first-year deficit is slightly less than all of Bush's deficits combined.

Woo-hoo!

Incorrect. Obama's current deficit for '09 is less than the publicly held deficits of Bush. That does not account for the other around $3 trillion in gov't held debts and deficits that accumulated under Bush.

When the data is available publicly and free, it is rather reckless not to check before accepting the word of some website.

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

obvious Child said:
Incorrect. Obama's current deficit for '09 is less than the publicly held deficits of Bush. That does not account for the other around $3 trillion in gov't held debts and deficits that accumulated under Bush.

When the data is available publicly and free, it is rather reckless not to check before accepting the word of some website.

Yeah. I'm not the one tossing oranges into an apples/apples comparison to bolster my point.

But I think it's funny that you need to toss in all that extra from Bush's entire 8-year run to make Obama's first-year deficit look "small."

obvious Child · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
Yeah. I'm not the one tossing oranges into an apples/apples comparison to bolster my point.

How? We are comparing deficits and debts between presidents. You are factually incorrect. What different factor did I toss in? You claimed that Obama's first year deficit was more than all of Bush's combined deficits. I pointed out that you were wrong on the basis of just publicly held deficits. When we account for total deficits, it gets much worse and you get even wronger.

But I think it's funny that you need to toss in all that extra from Bush's entire 8-year run to make Obama's first-year deficit look "small."

Apparently providing actual, relevant and factual data is "funny" to you.

Did I say Obama's deficit is good? No. But the argument that Obama's 1st year deficit is worse then Bush's combined is just outright wrong on the basis of mathematics.

If you want to talk about finances, at least get your math straight.

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

obvious Child said:
How? We are comparing deficits and debts between presidents. You are factually incorrect. What different factor did I toss in? You claimed that Obama's first year deficit was more than all of Bush's combined deficits. I pointed out that you were wrong on the basis of just publicly held deficits. When we account for total deficits, it gets much worse and you get even wronger.

Apparently providing actual, relevant and factual data is "funny" to you.

Did I say Obama's deficit is good? No. But the argument that Obama's 1st year deficit is worse then Bush's combined is just outright wrong on the basis of mathematics.

If you want to talk about finances, at least get your math straight.

Tell you what -- make your comparisons of like/kind deficits between the two. Show the numbers.

obvious Child · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
Tell you what -- make your comparisons of like/kind deficits between the two. Show the numbers.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1058025813-post61.html

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

obvious Child said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1058025813-post61.html

Dude.

This is just a repeat of what you said before. At these links:

According to the historical PDF, the combined total of Bush's deficits, 2001-2008 --revenues vs. outlays -- is 2.005 tn.

According to the current PDF, Obama's first-year deficit -- revenues vs. outlays -- is 1.845 tn. (And that's just the first year.)

That's an apples/apples comparison. Anything throwing in another $3 tn is adding oranges.

But as I said, if you have to throw all of that in just to make Obama's first year seem "small," think that tells you everything you need to know.

obvious Child · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
Dude.

This is just a repeat of what you said before. At these links:

According to the historical PDF, the combined total of Bush's deficits, 2001-2008 --revenues vs. outlays -- is 2.005 tn.

According to the current PDF, Obama's first-year deficit -- revenues vs. outlays -- is 1.845 tn. (And that's just the first year.)

That's an apples/apples comparison. Anything throwing in another $3 tn is adding oranges.

Actually it's throwing more apples in. If we're talking about deficits as a whole rather than just public, then it's Bush's total debt to Obama's first year deficit as the debt is the aggregation of deficits.

But as I said, if you have to throw all of that in just to make Obama's first year seem "small," think that tells you everything you need to know.

That would be your assumption. The data I have on public deficits was easily available. The data on government held deficits isn't that easy to come by. Thus I went for the easy access data. Either way, you're wrong as is the Heritage site you pulled your argument from. Does that make Obama's deficit small? No. But the data does prove that Bush's deficits combined are larger then Obama's deficit which is the opposite of the argument you earlier made.

Just because I think your argument about numbers is wrong doesn't mean I don't agree with you that the spending is out of control.

Generally most people here will not correct people they normally agree with even if they know the statement made was wrong. I'm not most people.

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

obvious Child said:
Actually it's throwing more apples in. If we're talking about deficits as a whole rather than just public, then it's Bush's total debt to Obama's first year deficit as the debt is the aggregation of deficits.

Apples/apples is comparing revenues to outlays.

That would be your assumption. The data I have on public deficits was easily available. The data on government held deficits isn't that easy to come by. Thus I went for the easy access data. Either way, you're wrong as is the Heritage site you pulled your argument from. Does that make Obama's deficit small? No. But the data does prove that Bush's deficits combined are larger then Obama's deficit which is the opposite of the argument you earlier made.

I've never been to the Heritage site or relied on Heritage anything for my arguments. That's YOUR "assumption," and a wrong one.

In any case, I conceded being slightly off, but in total, it hardly matters much. The difference in degree is staggering and obvious either way.

Kandahar · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
OK, fine. :roll: Accepting your numbers at face value, best case scenario -- Obama's first-year deficit is slightly less than all of Bush's deficits combined.

Woo-hoo!

A lot of the 2009 spending was already committed before Obama even took office. With that said, arguing about which is higher is stupid. The economic circumstances were not the same then as they are now. Obama hasn't really added very much spending that A) Bush hadn't also added, B) Bush wouldn't conceivably added if he had another year in office and continued to deal with the current crisis.

Now if we get universal health care at some point in the future, then your argument will at least make sense. It'll still be silly to complain about it when you consider the immense cost-savings associated with public health care, but at least Obama will have spent money on something that Bush probably would not have spent money on. But until that happens...your point is moot. Obama hasn't done much that Bush himself hadn't done (or wouldn't have done) toward the end of his term to deal with a crippling recession.

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

I disagree entirely. Everything in the "stimulus bill" was a choice. A 3.2 trillion budget is a choice.

It's unprecedented any way you slice it.

Kandahar · May 15, 2009

Harshaw said:
I disagree entirely. Everything in the "stimulus bill" was a choice.

I didn't say it wasn't a choice, I said Bush would've done the same thing. Maybe a Bush stimulus bill would've been geared more toward tax cuts than spending, but it still would have added a crapload to the deficit.

Harshaw said:
It's unprecedented any way you slice it.

We also haven't had -6.5% economic growth in a long time. :2wave:

Harshaw · May 15, 2009

Kandahar said:
I didn't say it wasn't a choice, I said Bush would've done the same thing. Maybe a Bush stimulus bill would've been geared more toward tax cuts than spending, but it still would have added a crapload to the deficit.

Like those who claimed that Gore wouldn't have had a successful response to 9/11, there's no way to know. Besides, Bush was never in play for this.

We also haven't had -6.5% economic growth in a long time. :2wave:

But it's happened before.

hazlnut · May 16, 2009

celticlord said:
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable? (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Talk about cluelessness. If Dear Leader weren't spending so damn much, he wouldn't have to borrow so damn much.

Instead of all those Constitutional law courses he slept through at Harvard, he should have taken a basic class on how to balance a checkbook. Then he'd at least have some clue as to what the problem is.

If Dear Leader wants to solve the problem of deficit spending, here's a simple suggestion:

STOP SPENDING!

What's your background in economics? Graduate? MBA? What?

I'm interested in hearing a well thought out opinion on the article but all you offer is distain and sarcasm.

When you ridicule a man who is smarter than you'll ever be, how do you expect to be taken seriously? :roll:

celticlord · May 16, 2009

hazlnut said:
What's your background in economics? Graduate? MBA? What?

Bachelor's in Accounting (suma cum laude graduate), plus 10 years of running my own business.

In other words, I've got more economic background in my left pinky than Dear Leader has in that coconut atop his shoulders.

hazlnut said:
When you ridicule a man who is smarter than you'll ever be, how do you expect to be taken seriously? :roll:

If Dear Leader is so smart, why is his spending so stupid?

obvious Child · May 19, 2009

Harshaw said:
Apples/apples is comparing revenues to outlays.

That ignores how things like Social Security are treated. Where government funds are allocated out of their original funds to pay for something else and replaced with a debt note. That's a deficit.

I've never been to the Heritage site or relied on Heritage anything for my arguments. That's YOUR "assumption," and a wrong one.

Then where did you get the notion that Obama's '09 deficit is greater than Bush's combined? Heritage Foundation has a rather large article on it and it's very recent.

obvious Child · May 19, 2009

Kandahar said:
A lot of the 2009 spending was already committed before Obama even took office.

Last I checked, the inherited deficit was around $1.2 trillion. Obama's adding around $600 billion.

Kandahar · May 19, 2009

obvious Child said:
Last I checked, the inherited deficit was around $1.2 trillion. Obama's adding around $600 billion.

What do you mean by "inherited deficit"? This year's deficit according to the Bush budget? I'm talking about spending for FY2010, much of which was already committed before Obama took office.

Frodly · May 19, 2009

celticlord said:
Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ?Unsustainable? (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Talk about cluelessness. If Dear Leader weren't spending so damn much, he wouldn't have to borrow so damn much.

Instead of all those Constitutional law courses he slept through at Harvard, he should have taken a basic class on how to balance a checkbook. Then he'd at least have some clue as to what the problem is.

If Dear Leader wants to solve the problem of deficit spending, here's a simple suggestion:

STOP SPENDING!

That is one of the stupidest suggestions I have ever heard!! Now can we move on to actual real solutions? The reality is that we need to raise taxes and cut spending. Neither party is going to cut spending, so that leaves one option, raise taxes!!

celticlord · May 19, 2009

Frodly said:
That is one of the stupidest suggestions I have ever heard!! Now can we move on to actual real solutions? The reality is that we need to raise taxes and cut spending. Neither party is going to cut spending, so that leaves one option, raise taxes!!

There's another option. Vote the bastards out and vote in some rookie politicians who will cut spending.

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

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Trump Grump Whisperer

Equal Opportunity Hater

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Equal Opportunity Hater

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Equal Opportunity Hater

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Equal Opportunity Hater

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Equal Opportunity Hater

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Enemy Combatant

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Enemy Combatant

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Well-known member

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

Enemy Combatant

Well-known member

Well-known member