obama budgets would add $13 TRILLION to public debt

• QuakerOats

  Stunning ........................... give me back W any day.
  
  
  http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2780.pdf
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35546.html
  Congressional Budget Office Head: Nation's Fiscal Policy "Unsustainable."
  
  Politico (4/9, Allen) reports that CBO chief Doug Elmendorf said yesterday that the nation's fiscal course "is 'unsustainable,' and the problem 'cannot be solved through minor tinkering.'" Elmendorf "noted a recent CBO report that pegged an increase in the public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if President Barack Obama's fiscal 2011 budget were to be implemented as written. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt would rise from 53 percent to 90 percent, CBO forecasted." The Hill (4/9, Alarkon) notes that Elmendorf went on to say, "It's a matter of arithmetic. ... Government would need to make changes in some set of the large programs, large parts of the tax code that we think of as the fundamental parts of the budget."
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....................
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Bump
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Puke.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  
• Footwedge

  QuakerOats wrote: Stunning ........................... give me back W any day.
  
  
  http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2780.pdf
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35546.html
  Congressional Budget Office Head: Nation's Fiscal Policy "Unsustainable."
  
  Politico (4/9, Allen) reports that CBO chief Doug Elmendorf said yesterday that the nation's fiscal course "is 'unsustainable,' and the problem 'cannot be solved through minor tinkering.'" Elmendorf "noted a recent CBO report that pegged an increase in the public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if President Barack Obama's fiscal 2011 budget were to be implemented as written. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt would rise from 53 percent to 90 percent, CBO forecasted." The Hill (4/9, Alarkon) notes that Elmendorf went on to say, "It's a matter of arithmetic. ... Government would need to make changes in some set of the large programs, large parts of the tax code that we think of as the fundamental parts of the budget."
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....................

  Buy a few keggers...kick off your shoes..and enjoy the impending country bankruptcy.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Footwedge wrote:
  Buy a few keggers...kick off your shoes..and enjoy the impending country bankruptcy.

  Good example of how not to go about this.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  It's all Bush's fault...and Clinton's...and Reagan's...and Bush...
  
  Just wait, the excuse makers will be around, shortly.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: It's all Bush's fault...and Clinton's...and Reagan's...and Bush...
  
  Just wait, the excuse makers will be around, shortly.

  LOL, yep, they always come around after the fact ignorers.
  
  Not saying it isn't the fault of every President over the last 100 years or so in some way, but Obama is unprecedented. And remember, people keep reminding us that he's only a year in. That's scary as shit.
• Mr. 300

  

  I all want you to imagine this for a moment. Switch out Obama's name, and insert George W Bush.
  
  Now, what would the press and the talking heads be saying then???
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Mr. 300 wrote: I all want you to imagine this for a moment. Switch out Obama's name, and insert George W Bush.
  
  Now, what would the press and the talking heads be saying then???

  There is no viable Fourth Estate in this country, anymore.
  
  They've abdicated their roles as watchdogs against the government to become watchdogs to protect the president.
  
  It's just one more reason this country is going down the tubes faster and without as much screaming and yelling as we'd otherwise see.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Mr. 300 wrote: I all want you to imagine this for a moment. Switch out Obama's name, and insert George W Bush.
  
  Now, what would the press and the talking heads be saying then???

  It doesn't really matter.
  
  This is about America, not which President was better.
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  Buy a few keggers...kick off your shoes..and enjoy the impending country bankruptcy.

  Good example of how not to go about this.

  I've watched it happen for the past 40 years. Nobody was more vociferous than me on this issue. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.
  
  So did 20% of the population.
  
  Since you are so young, you may not know what Perot's agenda was. Google him.
  
  People have this wild imagination cooking that had McCain been elected, there wouldn't have been the same deficit spending going on. Well history clearly shows that the GOP has spent more and have had bigger additions to the national debt per annum.
  
  It is indisputable and unarguable. SQ....Remember....the ball don't lie...LOL.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I know a lot about Ross Perot.
  
  But my point still remains.
• Footwedge

  Writerbuckeye wrote: It's all Bush's fault...and Clinton's...and Reagan's...and Bush...
  
  Just wait, the excuse makers will be around, shortly.

  Writer....the ball don't lie. The figures don't lie either. They've all done it...ever since you and I have been alive.
• jhay78

  

  So we agree they've all spent and spent more, but the point of the thread is that Obama's spending is unprecedented and unsustainable.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  jhay78 wrote: So we agree they've all spent and spent more, but the point of the thread is that Obama's spending is unprecedented and unsustainable.

  Exactly.
  
  McCain, Obama, Palin, etc., etc., etc.
  
  Don't care who it is, the point is, not only are we not taking a turn in the right direction. We're going the wrong way even faster.
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote: I know a lot about Ross Perot.
  
  But my point still remains.

  You are relatively new here on the political side. As such, you don't understand that my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I don't know if I'd call it new, just was removed for awhile. Self-ban because I couldn't deal with the BS rules (sorry LJ), but I've learned over the last few months that I no longer care to argue with people on political subjects. I don't try to change any minds anymore, it's pointless, people are too stuck in party politics to even have an actual conversation with.
• Footwedge

  jhay78 wrote: So we agree they've all spent and spent more, but the point of the thread is that Obama's spending is unprecedented and unsustainable.

  That is bullshit. Sorry. What was original unsustainable and unprecedented was Reagan, who tripled the national debt. Nobody had ever done something as radical as that.
  
  That is why Ross Perot entered the race in 1992. His pie charts clearly warned the American people that this unprecedented spending was unsustainable.
  
  It was in 1992, that Murray Rothbard, a staunch conservative who was a disciple of Austrian economics, laid claim that the US has gone "past the threshold" and should repudiate the National Debt...because of the insolvency situation.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  It's not a time to blame anyone from the fucking past. Like I said, the point is, the current administration is not only not taking a turn for the better--they're doing the exact opposite.
• I Wear Pants

  My question, and don't misinterpret this as me supporting us spending ourselves dead, is where were all of the people who are ballyhooing the current spending/situation when the framework for what is happening was being laid?
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote: I don't know if I'd call it new, just was removed for awhile. Self-ban because I couldn't deal with the BS rules (sorry LJ), but I've learned over the last few months that I no longer care to argue with people on political subjects. I don't try to change any minds anymore, it's pointless, people are too stuck in party politics to even have an actual conversation with.

  Political boards are good for learning, understanding, and also the entertainment value.
  
  I will admit to altering my views on a topic simply from being shown proof sources that prove a preconception of mine in being wrong.
  
  But then again, I am an independent...and a such...it's a lot easier with being flexible in my thinking process.
  
  Partisan hacks are partisan hacks. And they will always be partisan hacks.
• Footwedge

  jhay78 wrote: So we agree they've all spent and spent more, but the point of the thread is that Obama's spending is unprecedented and unsustainable.

  I definitely agree that Obama's spending is unsustainable. And it is unprecedented in total dollars spent. But it is not unprecedented in terms of percentage of growth (national debt) or as a ratio in comparing national debt to GDP.
  
  My contention is that the N.D. was deemed unsustainable way back when Reagan was blowing all that money.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Independents are boring too.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: Independents are boring too.

  
  LOL!