Obama: We Don’t Have an Urgent Deficit Crisis

[Karee 4,190]

President Obama, Friday at a town hall meeting at Binghamton University in Binghamton, NY: “We don’t have an urgent deficit crisis. The only crisis we have is the one that is manufactured in Washington and it’s ideological, and the basic notion is that we shouldn’t be helping people get health care and we shouldn’t be helping kids who can’t help themselves and whose parents are under resourced, we shouldn’t be helping them get a leg up.” 24 Aug 2013.

Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/08/23/Obama-We-Dont-Have-An-Urgent-Deficit-Crisis

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Thomas Herndon blew the lid off the debt jar.

Hypothesis ; US can probably add somewhere in the neighborhood of - several Trillion new debt before we start talking about tightening the purse strings (again).

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

President Obama, Friday at a town hall meeting at Binghamton University in Binghamton, NY: “We do have an urgent deficit crisis. The only crisis we have is the one that is manufactured in Washington and it’s ideological, and the basic notion is that we shouldn’t be helping people get health care and we shouldn’t be helping kids who can’t help themselves and whose parents are under resourced, we shouldn’t be helping them get a leg up.” 24 Aug 2013.

Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/08/23/Obama-We-Dont-Have-An-Urgent-Deficit-Crisis

Fixed ?

Under resourced parents ? OMG LOL

He is right..Help people get a leg up and stop the generation passed to generation subsidy programs that are destroying american families.

[Karee 4,190]

Thomas Herndon blew the lid off the debt jar.

Hypothesis ; US can probably add somewhere in the neighborhood of - several Trillion new debt before we start talking about tightening the purse strings (again).

It seems irresponsible to me to have a debt that is ~100% of GDP. Also, in the OP he was referring to the deficit.

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

It seems irresponsible to me to have a debt that is ~100% of GDP. Also, in the OP he was referring to the deficit.

I agree but ...revenues are up (makes me sick to my stomach to even type those words).

Got it but to run a deficit = run up more debt. So if running up more debt is needed = our politicians will make a lot of noise (for show) & then raise the ceiling. Again & again until We the People start voting them out for doing it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It's so nice to to be over run with mindless progressives during the weekend.

True to progressive nature, they only care about issues when someone else is paying

[Karee 4,190]

I agree but ...revenues are up (makes me sick to my stomach to even type those words).

Got it but to run a deficit = run up more debt. So if running up more debt is needed = our politicians will make a lot of noise (for show) & then raise the ceiling. Again & again until We the People start voting them out for doing it.

Bottom line is that the debt has increased on Obama's watch more than all his predecessors combined. But I get's that not a crisis in his mind.

It's a bit like the crackhead saying he's solving his addiction as he drops a $20 rock in his pipe, because yesterday he was smoking $25 rocks.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bottom line is that the debt has increased on Obama's watch more than all his predecessors combined.

That's incorrect. Debt was $11.9 trillion as we entered FY 2010 (the first full budget year the Obama administration oversaw). The debt is now still shy of $17 trillion - an overall increase of not quite $5 trillion to date. Yes, there are four more budget years left under the Obama administration. For those we are looking at deficits that are projected to be $600 billion this year, less than $500 billion next and I think in the $400 billion range the following two. So that would add another $2 trillion over the next 4 years. $5 trillion + $2 trillion = $7 trillion. Obviously, $7 trillion < $11.9 trillion.

Now, Obama's predecessor actually pulled off what you accuse Obama of doing. The previous administration inherited a debt of $5.8 trillion and left a debt of $11.9 trillion - slightly more than doubling the national debt over 8 years. That means they actually watched over an increase in the debt that exceeded all the debts of all previous administrations combined. For the majority of those 8 years they had a Republican controlled Congress that helped them pull that off. These are many of the same Republicans that call themselves deficit hawks now. You may take them seriously, I don't.

And just to make it a little more interesting, Ronald Reagan inherited a national debt of just under $1 trillion and left a debt of just under $3 trillion. That means that his administration managed to not only watch over the accumulation of more debt than all their predecessors combined, they managed to rack up twice the debt that all their predecessors combined managed to rack up. But he's some kind of conservative hero, I hear.

Sorry for dropping facts into the thread.

2000 - 2012: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

1950 - 1999: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's incorrect. Debt was $11.9 trillion as we entered FY 2010 (the first full budget year the Obama administration oversaw). The debt is now still shy of $17 trillion - an overall increase of not quite $5 trillion to date. Yes, there are four more budget years left under the Obama administration. For those we are looking at deficits that are projected to be $600 billion this year, less than $500 billion next and I think in the $400 billion range the following two. So that would add another $2 trillion over the next 4 years. $5 trillion + $2 trillion = $7 trillion. Obviously, $7 trillion < $11.9 trillion.

Now, Obama's predecessor actually pulled off what you accuse Obama of doing. The previous administration inherited a debt of $5.8 trillion and left a debt of $11.9 trillion - slightly more than doubling the national debt over 8 years. That means they actually watched over an increase in the debt that exceeded all the debts of all previous administrations combined. For the majority of those 8 years they had a Republican controlled Congress that helped them pull that off. These are many of the same Republicans that call themselves deficit hawks now. You may take them seriously, I don't.

And just to make it a little more interesting, Ronald Reagan inherited a national debt of just under $1 trillion and left a debt of just under $3 trillion. That means that his administration managed to not only watch over the accumulation of more debt than all their predecessors combined, they managed to rack up twice the debt that all their predecessors combined managed to rack up. But he's some kind of conservative hero, I hear.

Sorry for dropping facts into the thread.

2000 - 2012: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

1950 - 1999: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

A. Bush's fault . can also be "conjure up any conservative in history that even remotely did anything similar to what is going on today. It makes it ok.

[Karee 4,190]

That's incorrect. Debt was $11.9 trillion as we entered FY 2010 (the first full budget year the Obama administration oversaw). The debt is now still shy of $17 trillion - an overall increase of not quite $5 trillion to date. Yes, there are four more budget years left under the Obama administration. For those we are looking at deficits that are projected to be $600 billion this year, less than $500 billion next and I think in the $400 billion range the following two. So that would add another $2 trillion over the next 4 years. $5 trillion + $2 trillion = $7 trillion. Obviously, $7 trillion < $11.9 trillion.

Now, Obama's predecessor actually pulled off what you accuse Obama of doing. The previous administration inherited a debt of $5.8 trillion and left a debt of $11.9 trillion - slightly more than doubling the national debt over 8 years. That means they actually watched over an increase in the debt that exceeded all the debts of all previous administrations combined. For the majority of those 8 years they had a Republican controlled Congress that helped them pull that off. These are many of the same Republicans that call themselves deficit hawks now. You may take them seriously, I don't.

And just to make it a little more interesting, Ronald Reagan inherited a national debt of just under $1 trillion and left a debt of just under $3 trillion. That means that his administration managed to not only watch over the accumulation of more debt than all their predecessors combined, they managed to rack up twice the debt that all their predecessors combined managed to rack up. But he's some kind of conservative hero, I hear.

Sorry for dropping facts into the thread.

2000 - 2012: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

1950 - 1999: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

So by the numbers above, the previous administration inherited a debt of 5.8 trillion, and when they left it was 11.9 trillion. An increase of 6.1 trillion. Obama has been in office approx. 4.5 years and the debt is now 17 trillion. So during his ~5 years in office, the debt has increased 5.1 trillion. So he is 1 trillion shy of doing what his predecessor did in 8 years, while only being in office for 5 years.

As far as projections, I have one for you: The sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Other than that, nothing is certain.

No Obama comes out and says it's not urgent. That's a problem. Sorry for using your facts to make my point.

[Darnell 8,478]

I'm not paying any attention to that fella - I'm convinced he's suffering from Parkinsons now and has been making up sh|te for the last 3 years. (That Fella = Obama)

Edited August 25, 2013 by Darnell

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So by the numbers above, the previous administration inherited a debt of 5.8 trillion, and when they left it was 11.9 trillion. An increase of 6.1 trillion. Obama has been in office approx. 4.5 years and the debt is now 17 trillion. So during his ~5 years in office, the debt has increased 5.1 trillion. So he is 1 trillion shy of doing what his predecessor did in 8 years, while only being in office for 5 years.

As far as projections, I have one for you: The sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Other than that, nothing is certain.

No Obama comes out and says it's not urgent. That's a problem. Sorry for using your facts to make my point.

will also point out Reagan inherited a far bigger mess and although, he did run up the debit, he did create a roaring economy.

Obama not so much, despite having both houses his first two years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So by the numbers above, the previous administration inherited a debt of 5.8 trillion, and when they left it was 11.9 trillion. An increase of 6.1 trillion. Obama has been in office approx. 4.5 years and the debt is now 17 trillion. So during his ~5 years in office, the debt has increased 5.1 trillion. So he is 1 trillion shy of doing what his predecessor did in 8 years, while only being in office for 5 years.

As far as projections, I have one for you: The sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Other than that, nothing is certain.

No Obama comes out and says it's not urgent. That's a problem. Sorry for using your facts to make my point.

You haven't proven your point at all. Your point was this:

Bottom line is that the debt has increased on Obama's watch more than all his predecessors combined.

The increases in debt all of Obama's predecessors combined have seen under their watches is $11.9 trillion - the total debt Obama inherited. The Obama administration has not seen the debt increase by more than $11.9 trillion dollars. Period. That's a simple fact. Thus, the debt has not increased more under Obama's watch than under all his predecessors combined as you claimed. Nor will he see it increase more than all of predecessors combined. The only administrations that have racked up more debt than all of their predecessors combined are those of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Now, if you want to change your statement to "Obama will, by the end of his second term, have watched the debt in nominal dollars increase more than any of his predecessors" then that would have a pretty good chance of turning out right.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[GandD 5,966]

A. Bush's fault . can also be "conjure up any conservative in history that even remotely did anything similar to what is going on today. It makes it ok.

He disputed the claim with a specific argument that cited numbers and had sources. The claim was that Obama had spent more than any other president combined. How else can one dispute this with out bring up another president that has out spent him? You should assign yourself a letter, whichever one has to do with name calling in the presence of "over whelming facts"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He disputed the claim with a specific argument that cited numbers and had sources. The claim was that Obama had spent more than any other president combined. How else can one dispute this with out bring up another president that has out spent him? You should assign yourself a letter, whichever one has to do with name calling in the presence of "over whelming facts"

He likes to put his ignorance on display. Or he likes to look ridiculous. Or both. Not that I actually care which it is.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog