obama budgets would add $13 TRILLION to public debt

• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote: 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.

  Reagan was not a dictator. I know you probably don't mean it that way, but you make it sound like Reagan could write his own ticket when it came to federal spending power. Congress played its role. He had to deal with a democrat congress. I do wish however, he would have been more aggressive with the veto pen.
  
  I would argue that congress is more culpable in regards to spending than the president. The house really holds the cards when it comes to generating revenue to sustain any proposed federal expense. They can simply chose to not fund it. Which they rarely do, if ever. I would have to research it but I would not be surprised if they never had the balls to pull the plug.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge wrote: 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.

  FDR threatened to stack the supreme court. Instituted radical social change using the power of the federal government. Broke executive precedent by being elected to a 4th term. So radical his own party after his death helped pass the 22nd amendment assuring no chief executive could ever amass such power.
  
  Or Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Granted it was in the context of open rebellion against the federal government but the words of his order are still quite frightening.
  

  BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
  
  A PROCLAMATION
  
  Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;
  
  Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:
  
  Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.
  
  In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
  
  Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.
  
  ABRAHAM LINCOLN
  
  By the President:
  
  WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  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.

  Yes Reagan started a bad trend, but was he really more radical than $13 Trillion? Really?
• redstreak one

  

  ^^^^ You cant compare 1980 dollars versus 2010 dollars. Look at the percentages.
  
  http://perotcharts.com/
• QuakerOats

  Footwedge wrote:
  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.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?
• Little Danny

  

  I thought Obama was a moderate?
• BCSbunk

  Lets see, Reagan triples federal deficit he is a hero, Obama does not triple deficit he is horrid monster who will wreck the country..............
  
  More inane comments by the right wing who contradict themselves on a regular basis.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  So from the left side, as long as you don't triple it you are a hero?
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Actually don't answer that, you elected a President who may not even be American. So I don't really respect your opinion on shit.
• BCSbunk

  QuakerOats wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  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.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

  It was 94% in 1950.
  
  
  
  The Country disappeared years ago before you were born and you just did not notice.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
• BCSbunk

  SQ_Crazies wrote: Actually don't answer that, you elected a President who may not even be American. So I don't really respect your opinion on shit.

  May not be American?
  
  Really........... a birther?
  
  Now still in 2010 BWHAHAHAHAHAHA.
  
  Yes Kenya has taken our country over in a rich plot that will be overthrown by the Tin foil hat society ROFLMAO>
• stlouiedipalma

  I Wear Pants wrote: 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?

  Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.
  
  I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: 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?

  Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.
  
  I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

  Oh here we go again...liberals are sooooo much smarter than everyone else. so much so, in fact, that they believe THEY should make the most basic decisions regarding everyone's lives.
  
  Perhaps the one thing I noticed most back when I was a registered Democrat was how arrogant and condescending most of my liberal friends were toward conservatives.
  
  It's one of the reasons my eyes were opened to how WRONG most liberal policy is when it comes to what is best for people in general.
• cbus4life

  Writerbuckeye wrote:

  stlouiedipalma wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: 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?

  Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.
  
  I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

  Oh here we go again...liberals are sooooo much smarter than everyone else. so much so, in fact, that they believe THEY should make the most basic decisions regarding everyone's lives.
  
  Perhaps the one thing I noticed most back when I was a registered Democrat was how arrogant and condescending most of my liberal friends were toward conservatives.
  
  It's one of the reasons my eyes were opened to how WRONG most liberal policy is when it comes to what is best for people in general.

  Switch those around and that pretty much perfectly describes how you act on these boards.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: 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?

  Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.
  
  I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

  All this "where were they" crap isn't doing you people any good. They're here now, and they're kicking your ass in the debate every day. Were it me, I'd worry less about them and more about fixing my own crappy message delivery.
  
  But what do I know....I'm just some violent racist bagger.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  fish82 wrote:

  stlouiedipalma wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: 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?

  Probably sitting outside their double-wides drinking a case of beer.
  
  I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

  All this "where were they" crap isn't doing you people any good. They're here now, and they're kicking your ass in the debate every day. Were it me, I'd worry less about them and more about fixing my own crappy message delivery.
  
  But what do I know....I'm just some violent racist bagger.

  I didn't realize there was a time requirement before someone was allowed to become alarmed at all this spending.
  
  I don't care if you supported every spending bill up until TARP -- what matters now is that we know we are on the verge of an economic disaster and need to reverse course.
  
  Instead, this administration and Congress are shifting things up a gear and heading for the cliff.
• I Wear Pants

  People are allowed to change their minds on things. It's only natural as situations/individuals change. The problem I have is with people who act like anyone who doesn't support the conservative "fiscally responsible" agenda is an idiot when they only recently (2006 and later) formed that opinion.
  
  Again, I'm not trying to say that the conservatives are wrong to be alarmed or anything. I'm just wondering why in the last four years it has suddenly become an absolute, word of god, fact that you're a lazy liberal douche if you support Keynesian economic theories.
  
  I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to call out anyone from this thread or on this board in particular, I've just noticed that people I've talked to lately have treated me like I'm an asshole if I even suggest alternatives to the GOP/Pub/whatever opinion on the economy and such. Most of the time I'm just trying to play Devil's Advocate because I like to flesh out mine and other peoples opinions. And yes, this isn't only a conservative problem. I realize that liberals like to accuse the conservatives of spitting on homeless people and such.
  
  TL;DR: Why the hell are we all so sure that we are absolutely right?
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma wrote: I find it amazing that all of these folks suddenly became "fiscally responsible" since November 2008.

  Sadly some folks will never come around to fiscal responsibility, and many of them are part of the political elite.
• Footwedge

  QuakerOats wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  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.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

  I quit smoking 10 years ago. But I'm not at all understanding what you said here. (in bold)....Please elaborate.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  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.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

  I quit smoking 10 years ago. But I'm not at all understanding what you said here. (in bold)....Please elaborate.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented[size=x-large]?[/size]
  
  Better Ron Burgandy?
• Footwedge

  BCSbunk wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  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.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

  It was 94% in 1950.
  
  
  
  The Country disappeared years ago before you were born and you just did not notice.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

  Actually the GNP was less than the overall national debt during WWII. Keynesian Economics helped us win the war.
  
  Then, the US economy boomed...inspite of the marginal tax rates eclipsing 90%.
  
  At that time, patriotism was at an alll time high....and rightfully so. We had to win WWII...and we did.
  
  Unemployment was low, people were happy, moms were pumping out boomers like never before. The country paid down the national debt mostly due to the massive expanse of the private sector. We had the biggest trade surplus in the history of the world. Many of the products we made were purchased by the European countries that had their infrastructure blasted into Flintstone age.
  
  It was a great time to be an American.
  
  All that has pretty much gone down the shitter now.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Footwedge wrote: The country paid down the national debt mostly due to the massicv expanse of the private sector. We had the biggest trade surplus in the history of the world. Many of the products we made were purchased by the European countries that had their infrastructure blasted into Flintstone land.
  
  It was a great time to be an American.
  
  All that has pretty much gone down the shitter now.

  
  Obama sure is helping us get back to that...
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  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.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented ............. what are you smoking?

  I quit smoking 10 years ago. But I'm not at all understanding what you said here. (in bold)....Please elaborate.

  Having the debt equal to 90% of GDP (in 10 years) is not unprecedented[size=x-large]?[/size]
  
  Better Ron Burgandy?

  SQ....look up the national debt as a ratio to the GNP during WWII. You and Oats will learn something.
  
  Notice back then it was GNP...and not GDP. Do you know why the acronymn has changed?
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I'm not going to compare shit to WWII. That's not even a fair comparison, our situation is nothing like what it was then. Now they're growing government for the sake of growing government, and we all know that the one business that doesn't turn a profit is government.
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: The country paid down the national debt mostly due to the massive expanse of the private sector. We had the biggest trade surplus in the history of the world. Many of the products we made were purchased by the European countries that had their infrastructure blasted into Flintstone land.
  
  It was a great time to be an American.
  
  All that has pretty much gone down the shitter now.

  
  Obama sure is helping us get back to that...

  That's why I said buy some keggers and enjoy the ride. The expanse of government has been going on for 35 years or so. It is done not to make the system run functionally, but acts as an artificial bridge in keeping the masses fed and the workers employed.
  
  Take away the 3.5 million government jobs....whew...then the true unemployment rate would approach the Great Depresion levels.
  
  Sorry to tell you this Square. But my kids and your generation are all pretty much fucked. LOL