• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP makes $2.2 Trillion Counteroffer to Obama - includes revenue increases

Didn't say there were. Tax increases won't create jobs either. I am approaching this from a long-term view and the growing debt is going to be a huge problem about the time a lot of our social programs reach critical mass, but we also have the short-term problem of jobs and discretionary spending. Neither side has even scratched the surface IMHO. If I were POTUS, I would take a 6 month extension deal, and flood the Congress with specific meaningful reforms that are more substantive than the bar graph shell game to prove who has the bigger wiener.

Tax increases will create jobs if it allows more money to be spent on jobs programs. Social Security and Medicare are solvent for years, there is no rush to fix them when our economy is still weak. We can wait unitl unemployment drops and revenues are at a norm. What happened to jobs being number one? Forgot Romney said that?
 
Tax increases will create jobs if it allows more money to be spent on jobs programs. Social Security and Medicare are solvent for years, there is no rush to fix them when our economy is still weak. We can wait unitl unemployment drops and revenues are at a norm. What happened to jobs being number one? Forgot Romney said that?

I voted for Romney because of Benghazi. No other reason except maybe a dead aunt used to love him when he was her Governor and she was poor so I knew all that 47% crap was bull. If you want to create jobs, you have to get businesses eye off stock manipulation. To do that, you have to put in some market reforms that limits companies ability to trade in their own stock, tax the hell out of revenues created off trades executed by computer algorithms, limit commissions/fees, etc. It has the added benefit of cracking down in wild mutual fund swings of value IMHO. That is one step. I do not profess to know them all. As long as there is more emphasis in boardrooms on stock revenue than operating revenue, there will be no new jobs to speak of.
 
It is a false choice. Obama will not negotiate because he cannot negotiate--he does not control the democrats in the senate. He had to take what they would give him on healthcare, not what he wanted. If he truly controlled the Senate, he could easily pick off enough votes to raise the taxes just by being creative in what he was offering to rural district GOP members in the House. As is, there is no way for him to guarantee them anything he could promise to them. Taxes should be raised, but there needs to be cuts that House members can use for cover. For instance, carve out some family farm exceptions to the cap gains and estate tax stuff and a member of a rural district can say I protected farmers not billionaires. Right now this thing is nothing more than an ego-driven pissing match on both sides and there is no reason for it, but both sides have to put down their gun to end the Mexican standoff. Neither will, which is why we will be hitting the fiscal pothole IMHO.

Obama got health care reform because he was willing compromise, to go with the conservative's idea of an insurance mandate, instead of just insisting on a single payer plan that he preferred.

The Senate has already passed the extension of the middle class tax cuts. The House refusal to do likewise they do at their political peril, not to mention the harm it will do to the economy.
 
Obama got health care reform because he was willing compromise, to go with the conservative's idea of an insurance mandate, instead of just insisting on a single payer plan that he preferred.

Compromise with who? The GOP had too little leverage in '08 to require compromise...unless you can support such an assertion...
 
Obama got health care reform because he was willing compromise, to go with the conservative's idea of an insurance mandate, instead of just insisting on a single payer plan that he preferred.

The Senate has already passed the extension of the middle class tax cuts. The House refusal to do likewise they do at their political peril, not to mention the harm it will do to the economy.

This is exactly what I am talking about. That is nothing more than BS partisan rhetoric. The GOP maintained the House when Obama rode to a huge victory and the House has a 7% approval rating. Presidential coattails don't mean squat when most CD's are pretty red CD's these days. A farmer in North Carolina worries more about his farm in NC than he does tax plans for the rich and famous.
 
The Senate has already passed the extension of the middle class tax cuts. The House refusal to do likewise they do at their political peril, not to mention the harm it will do to the economy.

Seems some on 'your side of the isle' disagree:

On the other hand, a growing number of Democrats -- Howard Dean included -- are arguing that we ought to go "over the cliff" as planned. Cut spending and let the tax cuts expire, they argue. This will undoubtably hurt the economy in the short term, but these proponents argue it is necessary to inflict some pain in the short term in order to get our fiscal house in order.

Howard Dean: Let's Go Over the Fiscal Cliff | Think Tank | Big Think

Wouldn't surprise me if this wasn’t the plan by BOTH sides all along…the rest has just been political theatre.
 
For the first part. Tarp we made a profit on... $24 billion TARP
For the Wars, I'm using a cost of $3 trillion divided over the period of 2003-2012... or $300 Billion a year that's $1.2 Trillion for 4 years..
For stimulus I'm using:
February 2009: Obama stimulus $787 billion in broad stimulus package
February 2009: Obama stimulus $75 billion for distressed homeowners
February 2009: Obama stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
March 2009: Obama stimulus $30 billion for AIG
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $15 billion for small business lending
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $22 billion for Big 3 Automakers Chrysler and GM

Which adds up to $1.099T...
1.099T+ 1.2T- 24B = $2.275 Trillion... My point is still valid...

Now as for your "Its a very simple choice the GOP has now. They can join the Democrats in extending the tax cuts for the middle class and argue about the tax cuts for the wealthy later. Or they can once again hold the middle class tax cuts hostage to the tax cuts for the wealthy."

So let's assume we cut the taxes just for the middle class, what do we cut from the budget to make up for that tax cut we gave to the middle class?

You ignore the huge cost of the ten's of thousands of maimed and wounded soldiers from the war. You ignore the money borrowed from our own SS trust funds to fight the unnecessary war. And most importantly you ignore the effects of the Bush recession on tax revenues. of which the CBO has testified before Congress that without the stimulus, the Recession would have been worse.

Letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy, together with the savings from Medicare, and an improved economy because of a stronger middle class will more than make up for the cost to extend the middle class tax cuts. To reduce the deficit, they will also eventually cut military spending as it is not feasible, sustainable, or necessary for the US to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. The FICA cap will also have to be raised as we have done in the past.
 
Social Security and Medicare are solvent for years, there is no rush to fix them when our economy is still weak. We can wait unitl unemployment drops and revenues are at a norm.

Umm they also said that social security wouldn't pay out more than it took in until 2016... Guess what happened in 2010... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

So when is it going to be solvent until? and you are really willing to risk not paying seniors what has turned into their retirement fund? What do you want next to tell them to do, not eat, or not take their medicine, as they already are hurting thanks to Obama's policies via the federal reserve to kill the interest rates... What's with liberals and hating old people?
 
The Senate has already passed extension of the middle class tax cuts, its a done deal. Its up to the House now to do the same, or face the consequences in 2014.

Irrelevant as tax/spending legislation has to START in the house…per the USC...this was political posturing by the Democrats in the Senate. Looks like it fooled at least one person… ;)
 
Last edited:
Excellent analysis Sir! Thank you.

They are integrated in that they both need to be decided at or around the same time, nothing more nothing less. We can pass a solution to one, none or both.

Now are they just messing with us?

No I don't think so, I honestly think both sides see this as a major issue and want to solve things their way.

Is this a major crisis?

It depends on what you mean by a major crisis. And know that there are many outcomes that could come out of this.
1. We go over the fiscal cliff but pass a debt ceiling increase: this will likely result in a recession of negative 1.5-3.0% GDP growth. (Is this a crisis well remember what Regan said, "a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose yours"... so it depends on if you lose your job or not because of this).
2. We don't go over the fiscal cliff but pass a debt ceiling increase: while this is likely the best short term fix and won't result in any recession and could even lead to economic growth, one must question if our markets will accept our ability to pay back our debt when we told them we would go over the cliff to justify more debt and removed that and then asked for more debt. This could lead us to a slow path of increased interest rates, meaning more debt (higher deficits as we would have bigger interest payments) and more issues.
3. We go over the fiscal cliff but don't pass a debt ceiling increase: this will likely see the worst results, as we will get spending cuts tax increases and default on our payments of our national debt.. Which will lead to higher interest rates very quickly and the only way to fix this problem will be to print money, which will cause inflation.
4. We don't go over the fiscal cliff and don't pass a debt ceiling increase: (very unlikely) however we will see a default of our payments, interest rates will quickly rise, and only way to fix this problem will to print money which will cause inflation.

So I think it depends on what happens, there are 4 likely scenarios... If you think any of them are "major crisis's" are up to you to decide, however no matter what way you look at it, we are in a difficult situation. But the way I see things are, no matter what solution we pick, even if it is the most likely #2 it is kind of like a college student who hands in his papers late and asks the professor to accept them. It may work a few times, but at some time, they will not get credit for their work, and will fail... The credit for their work is what the markets see us doing to keep a sustainable national debt. Once markets no longer accept our work, our promises our solutions, we will see interest rates skyrocket which will cause interest payments to go up by likely around 500 billion a year, meaning deficits 500 billion a year more...
 
You ignore the huge cost of the ten's of thousands of maimed and wounded soldiers from the war. You ignore the money borrowed from our own SS trust funds to fight the unnecessary war. And most importantly you ignore the effects of the Bush recession on tax revenues. of which the CBO has testified before Congress that without the stimulus, the Recession would have been worse.

Letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy, together with the savings from Medicare, and an improved economy because of a stronger middle class will more than make up for the cost to extend the middle class tax cuts. To reduce the deficit, they will also eventually cut military spending as it is not feasible, sustainable, or necessary for the US to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. The FICA cap will also have to be raised as we have done in the past.

No I don't I overstated the cost... Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM Add the Iraq and Afghanistan war together, note you don't get 3 trillion.. Don't assume..

Debt is debt it doesn't matter where it comes from... and if the money borrowed is not part of our national debt as it appears you are inferring, then obama has added more to our debt not less. But you can't count debt added twice by a war...

Lets just assume that we grew tax revenues by 3% per year, (which is strong growth for the US) this time in 2008 we had taken in 2.53 Trillion for federal income taxes source: U.S. National Debt Clock 2008 so in 2009 we would have seen 2.6059; 2010 we would have seen 2.684; 2011 we would have seen 2.764; and 2012 we would have seen $2.848 T

As of today we have seen 2.44 T in federal tax revenue... so 407 billion less than if we would have grown 3% every year which would have been very optimistic...

So if we add in the total lost revenue assuming no recession and a really high growth rate for our country... we would account for 2.675 Trillion... Again your math doesn't add up, Obama added over 5.8T... although you appear to be claiming he added more and borrowed it from Social Security, not sure if that's true or not... but you are still missing a large large chunk of why our debt went up so much...

Don't get me started on Medicare, as my wife is a doctor, or will be she graduates from med school this year... The savings via paying doctors less will mean doctors don't see the patients... So yes it's a savings as the patients won't have a doctor... Period, there isn't a doctor I've talked to who hasn't said that... They may see a few out of their own good will, but it will be at a loss to them, and it will be very hard to get an appointment.

Now as to a stronger middle class that's a great theory, but we haven't seen it to date, we've seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... And your whole military spending, won't get cut as there are programs
 
Excellent analysis Sir! Thank you.

Thanks, but from our stand point that's only half the battle, now we have to figure out how to prepare for each and every one of those possible outcomes...

I think times could be pretty ugly, but I'm an optimist, I look at people like warren buffet, he made his fortune off these kind of times. I made a ton of money off of 2008 in the stock market... If you figure out what to do, to best protect yourself and take advantage of the times you can come out of these hard times much better off than you went into them...

But I'm still not sure fully what the best way to protect yourself will be...
 
I understand. I've been succeeding from other peoples failures and while that has been great for The SpeckleMan, it's heartbreaking for those who suffer.

I've been buying up condos in my complex for not only for less than the debt owed, but far less than the replacement value. In 10 years, if America and Specklebang (or his heirs) are still around, I'll be getting a genius stamp.

But just like stocks, every winner needs a loser. That is how it is but it doesn't feel like what should be. In better times, we could all be winners.


Thanks, but from our stand point that's only half the battle, now we have to figure out how to prepare for each and every one of those possible outcomes...

I think times could be pretty ugly, but I'm an optimist, I look at people like warren buffet, he made his fortune off these kind of times. I made a ton of money off of 2008 in the stock market... If you figure out what to do, to best protect yourself and take advantage of the times you can come out of these hard times much better off than you went into them...

But I'm still not sure fully what the best way to protect yourself will be...
 
I'll be letting you know how the Medicare scene goes because today I signed up for a PFFS Medicare Advantage plan. PFFS means there are NO network doctors, you have to convince the doctor to accept the Medicare rate and get paid in 30 days. Will anybody take this? Ha! I'll sure find out and I'll report back to this board with some real-life facts.

I don't see a way out of this spending mess. Between real life and sacred cows, and a President who loves new programs and a (partial) Congress who worship the tax rates of the rich, sheesh, what a mess.



No I don't I overstated the cost... Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM Add the Iraq and Afghanistan war together, note you don't get 3 trillion.. Don't assume..

Debt is debt it doesn't matter where it comes from... and if the money borrowed is not part of our national debt as it appears you are inferring, then obama has added more to our debt not less. But you can't count debt added twice by a war...

Lets just assume that we grew tax revenues by 3% perI year, (which is strong growth for the US) this time in 2008 we had taken in 2.53 Trillion for federal income taxes source: U.S. National Debt Clock 2008 so in 2009 we would have seen 2.6059; 2010 we would have seen 2.684; 2011 we would have seen 2.764; and 2012 we would have seen $2.848 T

As of today we have seen 2.44 T in federal tax revenue... so 407 billion less than if we would have grown 3% every year which would have been very optimistic...

So if we add in the total lost revenue assuming no recession and a really high growth rate for our country... we would account for 2.675 Trillion... Again your math doesn't add up, Obama added over 5.8T... although you appear to be claiming he added more and borrowed it from Social Security, not sure if that's true or not... but you are still missing a large large chunk of why our debt went up so much...

Don't get me started on Medicare, as my wife is a doctor, or will be she graduates from med school this year... The savings via paying doctors less will mean doctors don't see the patients... So yes it's a savings as the patients won't have a doctor... Period, there isn't a doctor I've talked to who hasn't said that... They may see a few out of their own good will, but it will be at a loss to them, and it will be very hard to get an appointment.

Now as to a stronger middle class that's a great theory, but we haven't seen it to date, we've seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... And your whole military spending, won't get cut as there are programs
 
No I don't I overstated the cost... Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM Add the Iraq and Afghanistan war together, note you don't get 3 trillion.. Don't assume..

From your source, Cost of War: "The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)"
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters

Debt is debt it doesn't matter where it comes from... and if the money borrowed is not part of our national debt as it appears you are inferring, then obama has added more to our debt not less. But you can't count debt added twice by a war...

Lets just assume that we grew tax revenues by 3% per year, (which is strong growth for the US) this time in 2008 we had taken in 2.53 Trillion for federal income taxes source: U.S. National Debt Clock 2008 so in 2009 we would have seen 2.6059; 2010 we would have seen 2.684; 2011 we would have seen 2.764; and 2012 we would have seen $2.848 T

As of today we have seen 2.44 T in federal tax revenue... so 407 billion less than if we would have grown 3% every year which would have been very optimistic...

So if we add in the total lost revenue assuming no recession and a really high growth rate for our country... we would account for 2.675 Trillion... Again your math doesn't add up, Obama added over 5.8T... although you appear to be claiming he added more and borrowed it from Social Security, not sure if that's true or not... but you are still missing a large large chunk of why our debt went up so much...

Don't get me started on Medicare, as my wife is a doctor, or will be she graduates from med school this year... The savings via paying doctors less will mean doctors don't see the patients... So yes it's a savings as the patients won't have a doctor... Period, there isn't a doctor I've talked to who hasn't said that... They may see a few out of their own good will, but it will be at a loss to them, and it will be very hard to get an appointment.

Now as to a stronger middle class that's a great theory, but we haven't seen it to date, we've seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... And your whole military spending, won't get cut as there are programs

We saw it in the 40's to the 80s and again in the 90's. When tax rates for the wealthy were higher than today.

"Summary

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."

"It is the combination of historically high spending and low revenues that is producing the current string of trillion-dollar annual deficits, and piling up debt. Those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the other side of the ledger."

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

"on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/congressional-budget-office-defends-stimulus/2012/06/06/gJQAnFnjJV_story.html
 
Last edited:
I understand. I've been succeeding from other peoples failures and while that has been great for The SpeckleMan, it's heartbreaking for those who suffer.

I've been buying up condos in my complex for not only for less than the debt owed, but far less than the replacement value. In 10 years, if America and Specklebang (or his heirs) are still around, I'll be getting a genius stamp.

But just like stocks, every winner needs a loser. That is how it is but it doesn't feel like what should be. In better times, we could all be winners.

Yeah I'm sorta thinking homes are good investments these days, Locking in a 30 year around the 3% rate is not stupid to do... But, I tend to think Farm land is a bit better of an investment than homes or condos... people need food... If things go poorly, they print money we get inflation and food prices go up (farm land is worth more)... If things get better food prices go up due to growth, (farm land is worth more)... No matter what really happens I think that farm land is a win win solution..> I'd highly recommend looking into it. But again I'm still trying to figure out timing...

I'll be letting you know how the Medicare scene goes because today I signed up for a PFFS Medicare Advantage plan. PFFS means there are NO network doctors, you have to convince the doctor to accept the Medicare rate and get paid in 30 days. Will anybody take this? Ha! I'll sure find out and I'll report back to this board with some real-life facts.

I don't see a way out of this spending mess. Between real life and sacred cows, and a President who loves new programs and a (partial) Congress who worship the tax rates of the rich, sheesh, what a mess.

Doctors will lose money seeing medicare patients if they make cuts like Obama says he wants to.. Sure these cuts are paid for... but there is no point to medicare if we don't pay doctors a fair wage, they shouldn't pay to work...

As for how we get out of this mess, the thing is we need to restructure these programs so they are realistic... Social security is a retirement program, yet we don't invest the money that goes into it... Medicare 30 dollars is paid in and 100 dollars comes out..> We need to fix these two problems, it means either fewer benefits for the wealthy, or more taxes... But in terms of social security we could change the system, I'm not sure what the feasibility of changing medicare is...
 
From your source, Cost of War: "The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (www.costsofwar.org)"
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters



We saw it in the 40's to the 80s and again in the 90's. When tax rates for the wealthy were higher than today.

"Summary

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."

"It is the combination of historically high spending and low revenues that is producing the current string of trillion-dollar annual deficits, and piling up debt. Those who blame deficits solely on spending ignore the other side of the ledger."

FactCheck.org : Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

"on Wednesday, under questioning from skeptical Republicans, the director of the nonpartisan (and widely respected) Congressional Budget Office was emphatic about the value of the 2009 stimulus. And, he said, the vast majority of economists agree.

In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

“Only 4 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee. “That,” he added, “is a distinct minority.”

Congressional Budget Office defends stimulus - The Washington Post

You do understand the wars have been going on longer than 4 years... You must divide the cost over 10 years... and only count that for the debt added under Obama... I used 3 trillion which is far more than most estimates of the cost of war to date...

Again I'm saying that you can claim up to 35 ish % not 18%... so I'm far more liberal than you are even wanting me to be... (however I don't think all 35% can be blamed I'm just going to the extreme to show you how your numbers don't add up)...

But even if you remove that 2.675 trillion from the debt we have added of the $5.8 trillion, even if you add in an extra trillion wiggle room, obama has still overseen a HUGE increase in our national debt, which can not be attributed to anyone but himself and his inability to balance a budget...
 
the House should pass a bill extending the tax rates for EVERYONE. the dishonest dems claimed that these tax rates only benefitted the rich when they were enacted 10 years ago. Now the same dishonest parasites are claiming that these rates are good for most people (but not those who actually are paying most of the FIT).

The rich can afford to pay more; the middle-class and the poor cannot.

BTW, I find it amusing to see a lawyer call someone else a parasite.:lamo
 
The rich can afford to pay more; the middle-class and the poor cannot.

BTW, I find it amusing to see a lawyer call someone else a parasite.:lamo

So where do you propose we cut from in terms of spending to pay for the middle class tax cut, note the fiscal cliff came about as we needed to pay for our debt ceiling increase or at least slow down the growth of our debt... (Note you can't say the wealthy people's taxes need to go up and they do under the fiscal cliff as that revenue is already accounted for...) do you want to cut social security medicare? where do you see room to cut?
 
Last edited:
The rich can afford to pay more; the middle-class and the poor cannot.

BTW, I find it amusing to see a lawyer call someone else a parasite.:lamo

horsecrap. pure horsecrap

and maybe if the middle class couldn't afford any more taxes at all they'd stop demanding so much government

BTW I am a civil and labor defense attorney. I guard against parasites
 
:lamo :lamo :lamo

you can disprove that about people I know when you have no clue who i am

does your politics flow from a mistaken belief that you are more entitled to wealth than those who have it? its a constant disease with those who want people more successful than they are to be taxed more
 
Since you think it is so easy, why don't you point out a free nation of comparable size with better than 2.7% growth in the 3rd quarter of 2012.

Here are some examples that don't have near our growth. They are our major trading partners and the Eurozone alone is responsible for 60% of out exports of finished goods.

0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg

You didn't say "of comparable size" -- you said "in the free world." (And what does "of comparable size" mean, anyway? There are about 4-5 countries in the entire world which are "of comparable size" in the various ways you can measure it, so if that's the extent to which you move your goalposts . . . )

Here's the most recent data from each:

GDP Annual Growth Rate | Country List

You will find a number of the "free world" nations posting better than 2.7%.
 
You do understand the wars have been going on longer than 4 years... You must divide the cost over 10 years... and only count that for the debt added under Obama... I used 3 trillion which is far more than most estimates of the cost of war to date...

Again I'm saying that you can claim up to 35 ish % not 18%... so I'm far more liberal than you are even wanting me to be... (however I don't think all 35% can be blamed I'm just going to the extreme to show you how your numbers don't add up)...

But even if you remove that 2.675 trillion from the debt we have added of the $5.8 trillion, even if you add in an extra trillion wiggle room, obama has still overseen a HUGE increase in our national debt, which can not be attributed to anyone but himself and his inability to balance a budget...

As I see it, most of deficit was due to decreased revenues due to the Recession, two unfunded wars, and increased health care costs. As the CBO and great majority of economists have stated, the recession would have been worse without the stimulus.

So the President acted to address the major causes of our deficit. He acted to make the recession less severe, he ended the war the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan, and he acted to protect Americans from unaffordable health care costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom