Obama added more to debt than first 40 presidents COMBINED

[bucfan64 307]

CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan

 

Culumulative deficit is greater in 19 months than Bush had in 8 years!

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

Edited September 9, 2010 by bucfan64

[Deleted Account 5,203]

CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan

 

Culumulative deficit is greater in 19 months than Bush had in 8 years!

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

 

Change we can believe in!

[blueinbama 259]

change we can believe in!

 

remember in november!!!

[GMan 3,569]

remember in november!!!

 

Yes, we can...

[BHS03 99]

The guy is by far the worst President in the history of this country and there are facts to back that statement up.

[VHSLhelper 571]

Really ?!?!?!

Let's look at the ACTUAL facts.

 

This just PROVES how bad BUSH screwed us up.

Lead paint was cheap, asbestos was cheap, Chinese drywall & old tires were cheap, but tons of money is now needed to clean up those messes.

 

Same for Bush's mess. Has everyone already forgotten all the bail-out money that was needed because the banking mess? or the auto mess?

 

----

 

I LOVE how this story twists the numbers around so you dcan't see the truth.

 

First, they compared 2010 to 1991.

So let's go back a bit and compare the first 1.5 years of Poppa (half of 1989 & 1990) to 1971....

76.3 + 221 = 297.3, compared to 303. Interesting... he ALSO came in after an 8-year Repub. and he came VERY close to matching the old total in 18 months... maybe he did match it in 19 months, who knows???

 

-----------------------------

 

Second - "At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office",

is the right way to do it. The new guy took over in Jan., LONG after the budget and taxes were set. Not much you can do to change things when day 1 is half-way through the cycle... the previous guy gets that year.

 

But then they have "That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--".

You can't count an extra year there, bub.

 

Let's look at Ronnie's REAL numbers... 81-89 : from 789.4 to 2190.7. While that's JUST 1.4 trillion, that's ALSO 2.775 times what it was when he started.

 

1989-93 : from 2190.7 to 3248.4, so daddy only increased it about 50%, but he was just getting warmed up.

 

1993-2001 : from 3248.4 to 3319.6. Clinton peaked @ 3773.3, but every year the additional amount improved and we were GAINING GROUND when "Dub-ya" came in.

 

Boy George didn't like that, though. From 2001-2009, the mess went from 3319.6 to 7544, or 2.274 times, rivaling Ronnie.

 

------

 

"The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion."

Wow ... that's LESS than last year... reminds me of Clinton... we're gaining ground again.

 

Then the next paragraph says...

"The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II."

Yeah, but again, the first "year" was the 2nd half of W's budget cycle.

[bucfan64 307]

Really ?!?!?!

Let's look at the ACTUAL facts.

 

This just PROVES how bad BUSH screwed us up.

Lead paint was cheap, asbestos was cheap, Chinese drywall & old tires were cheap, but tons of money is now needed to clean up those messes.

 

Same for Bush's mess. Has everyone already forgotten all the bail-out money that was needed because the banking mess? or the auto mess?

 

----

 

I LOVE how this story twists the numbers around so you dcan't see the truth.

 

First, they compared 2010 to 1991.

So let's go back a bit and compare the first 1.5 years of Poppa (half of 1989 & 1990) to 1971....

76.3 + 221 = 297.3, compared to 303. Interesting... he ALSO came in after an 8-year Repub. and he came VERY close to matching the old total in 18 months... maybe he did match it in 19 months, who knows???

 

-----------------------------

 

Second - "At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office",

is the right way to do it. The new guy took over in Jan., LONG after the budget and taxes were set. Not much you can do to change things when day 1 is half-way through the cycle... the previous guy gets that year.

 

But then they have "That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--".

You can't count an extra year there, bub.

 

Let's look at Ronnie's REAL numbers... 81-89 : from 789.4 to 2190.7. While that's JUST 1.4 trillion, that's ALSO 2.775 times what it was when he started.

 

1989-93 : from 2190.7 to 3248.4, so daddy only increased it about 50%, but he was just getting warmed up.

 

1993-2001 : from 3248.4 to 3319.6. Clinton peaked @ 3773.3, but every year the additional amount improved and we were GAINING GROUND when "Dub-ya" came in.

 

Boy George didn't like that, though. From 2001-2009, the mess went from 3319.6 to 7544, or 2.274 times, rivaling Ronnie.

 

------

 

"The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion."

Wow ... that's LESS than last year... reminds me of Clinton... we're gaining ground again.

 

Then the next paragraph says...

"The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II."

Yeah, but again, the first "year" was the 2nd half of W's budget cycle.

 

Shame on me, I should have known that our Messiah had done nothing wrong, how stupid of me to actually believe that spending has increased under Obama. Why can't I wake up and realize that everything in the history of the world is to be blamed on the Bush clan, forgive me for not noticing that alarming "fact."

 

If my wife would only buy more KOOL-AID, perhaps I could get things straight in my head.

 

 

NOT!

 

The lame argument that 2 wrongs make a right, is really starting to get ooollllllllllllldddddddd. Why is it that everything bad that Obama does is suddenly justified because Bush did something bad?

 

Wrong is wrong, facts are facts, we are being led over a cliff by big spending, big government power players and some folks still want to pretend that the answer is a jackass or an elephant!

Edited September 10, 2010 by bucfan64

[wave316 64]

remember in november!!!

 

November is coming! I pray the Pelosi-Reid era is over... Hope Obama leaves in 2 years.. Boucher needs to go..he's in their hip pocket. I'm voting for change in november ,hoping many more join me...

[GmanFan 21]

We got change. We have changed how much we spend. USA Today article this week reported 1 in 6 Americans are on welfare. Good grief. Where are we going?

[VHSLhelper 571]

what "bad" has Obama done?

What "2 wrongs"?

 

Obama's 1st full year should produce a lower number than the previous year, which was half over when he took office. This is a reverse of the steady increases from the last prez. If that's "wrong", and "bad", I guess you'd like the numbers to be higher????

[Deleted Account 5,203]

what "bad" has Obama done?

What "2 wrongs"?

 

Obama's 1st full year should produce a lower number than the previous year, which was half over when he took office. This is a reverse of the steady increases from the last prez. If that's "wrong", and "bad", I guess you'd like the numbers to be higher????

 

No, I want a much larger reversal than this. You're operating off the false premise that "less of a bad thing" is a "good thing". And it's not. While Rome wasn't built in a day, spending nearly $1T in stimulus while seeing no job growth is simply ignorant. Honestly, screw the numbers. When 1 in 7 Americans are out of work, taking 1 drop out of the rain bucket of debt isn't doing ANY good...

[bucfan64 307]

If I am the president, and during my administration 1 million more people become unemployed, do I then have permission to boast in my second year that numbers are down, when only 900,000 are unemployed? I think not!

 

FACTS THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

 

1. At 9.5%, the unemployment rate is 1.8 percentage points higher today than when the President took office. There are 3.3 million fewer U.S. jobs than there were in January 2009. The U.S. economy has lost jobs in 12 of the 18 months he has been office, including the last two months.

 

These facts = "Bad, bad or BaDD" however you want to spell it.

 

2. In early August of last year, the President declared that, thanks in part to his policies, the U.S. economy was “pointed in the right direction.†We have lost jobs in six of the 12 months since then, for a net decline of 52,000 jobs. The 9.4% unemployment rate when he made this statement climbed to 10.1% and has since declined to 9.5%, still higher than it was last August.

 

No matter how you spin it this too equals.............Bad!

 

3. The President signed into law an $862 billion stimulus law and two health laws that will create $788 billion of new entitlements over the next decade. Combine these with countless other smaller spending bills, several of which were labeled as emergencies and therefore not paid for, and the U.S. government is $2.5 trillion more in debt than on the day this President took office. That’s $8,000 more debt for every American man, woman, and child.

 

as the folks back home would say........."that sure ain't good," which translates =BAD!

 

4.Yet the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates this administration would have the federal government spend more than 24% of the overall U.S. economy over his term, a government 25% larger than during the Clinton era. Budget deficits would average 8.7% of the U.S. economy, compared to Clinton’s average 0.4% surplus.

 

yippeeeee, worse than clinton equals = Bad!

 

5. If the President has his way, on Jan. 1, taxes on many successful small business owners will rise. Investors will pay higher taxes on their capital gains and dividends, and some small businesses and family farms will once again be subject to death taxes. By the way this isn't UNDOING any tax cuts for the rich this ONLY INCREASES TAXES on small businesses.

 

More taxes = BAD!

[VHSLhelper 571]

------

 

"on Jan. 1, taxes on many successful small business owners will rise"

 

Good... they're the ones that make the $$$, so hey should be the ones that pay the tax $$$.

 

 

"Investors will pay higher taxes on their capital gains and dividends"

 

see above... plus this would ONLY apply to ppl. in the 2 highest tax brackets... not your typical blue-collar guy.

 

"and some small businesses and family farms will once again be subject to death taxes."

 

As of last week, the estate tax would still be 0 on anything up to $3.5 Million per person / $7 Million for a couple. I have no clue how many small businesses would get hit, because I have no idea what the definition of a "small business" is, but, apparently, farms aren't a major concern.

 

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/02/grassley-estate-tax/

 

(Okay, so I broke down and went to Wiki and found this...

The legal definition of "small" varies by country and by industry. In the United States the Small Business Administration establishes small business size standards on an industry-by-industry basis, but generally specifies a small business as having fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7 million in annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing businesses)

 

By the way this isn't UNDOING any tax cuts for the rich this ONLY INCREASES TAXES on small businesses."

 

REALLY??? Now that right there tells me a LOT... a Dem. NOT undoing tax cuts for the rich??? Riiiiiiggghhhttttt.

 

10 years ago, the Rep. Congress passed a tax relief bill that would last 10 years because they didn't have the support to make it permanent. What happened during those cuts?

 

Job growth, which SHOULD have produced MORE taxable income, therefore, more money to DC. But since the tax cuts were mainly for the big-wigs, they didn't pay as much as they had been. Guess what happened? We had a HUGE work force that STILL couldn't pay enough taxes to make up for what their bosses were pocketing. While these tax cuts were in effect, our deficit MORE THAN DOUBLED, because those who COULD affort to pay more WERE NOT.

 

And now Obama is trying to put the big burden back on the big-wigs, and the

Repubs. are trying their best to spin this as a BAD move, knowing that the sheeple will believe anything (Obama isn't an American, he'll take away your guns, etc.)

 

-----

 

For those of you wondering how Obama's plan would effect your pocketbook...

According to NPR, a single taxpayer w/ under $175,000 taxable income will see NO tax increase.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129605962

Edited September 14, 2010 by VHSLhelper

[VHSLhelper 571]

November is coming! I pray the Pelosi-Reid era is over... Hope Obama leaves in 2 years.. Boucher needs to go..he's in their hip pocket. I'm voting for change in november ,hoping many more join me...

 

If he's "in their hip pocket", how/why did he vote against their health care bill?

[bucfan64 307]

If he's "in their hip pocket", how/why did he vote against their health care bill?

 

Because his vote was not needed and to vote for the health takeover would have meant death at the polls in November.

 

Therefore, he, along with a few other select members were spared the trouble of a Yes vote and the consequences that went with it.......

 

He votes with Peolosi 96% of the time and is an Obama yes man, once again you are taking the ONE incident in which he did not vote with the president and pretending that it proves him to be more independent. If that one vote means he is not an Obama lackey, then what do the countless YES votes make him?

[bucfan64 307]

------

 

"on Jan. 1, taxes on many successful small business owners will rise"

 

Good... they're the ones that make the $$$, so hey should be the ones that pay the tax $$$.

 

"Investors will pay higher taxes on their capital gains and dividends"

 

see above... plus this would ONLY apply to ppl. in the 2 highest tax brackets... not your typical blue-collar guy.

 

REALLY??? Now that right there tells me a LOT... a Dem. NOT undoing tax cuts for the rich??? Riiiiiiggghhhttttt.

 

 

America was founded on the principle of EQUAL JUSTICE, you are admitting in this post that you believe in punishing the rich for their success. This is not equality!

 

It is however in lock step with Marxism, which explains the reason that you agree with the President on so many issues.

 

Wealthy people create jobs, jobs equal wages, wage increases leads to more purchasing which generates more taxes.

 

I have never been employed by a poor man and probably never will be, but if things continue to "CHANGE," the way they have in past 19 months, I have a feeling that I will surely become one of those POOR PEOPLE.

 

RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS A MARXIST PHILOSOPHY, to subscribe to this philosophy is not only un-American but it is also fundamentally rooted in Collectivism..........which does not and has never worked!

 

It is very simple CUT TAXES, CUT SPENDING AND the economy will flourish!

Bush and his cronies cut taxes but kept spending, Obama raises taxes and increases spending, both of these methods WILL NOT WORK! Never have and never will! Human History proves this point rather well.

Edited September 14, 2010 by bucfan64

[blueinbama 259]

Originally Posted by VHSLhelper

------

 

"on Jan. 1, taxes on many successful small business owners will rise"

 

Good... they're the ones that make the $$$, so hey should be the ones that pay the tax $$$.

 

You do realize that applies to all small business owners even the ones in small towns who struggle to even pay their rent and feed their families...you do realize you are talking about people in small towns all across Southwest Virginia in towns like Grundy, Richlands, Saltville, Lebanon, etc. that have seen businesses close because they can't make ends meet...you do realize you are talking about people like me, who work for those small businesses whose owners have to cut back on employees because they can't afford to pay them anymore because the economy is in the dumper...and you want to tax them more? You, sir, are part of the problem, and definitely not part of the solution for the working man. Just because a man owns a business does not mean he is wealthy. Most of the time it means just the opposite. You have absolutely no idea how many people depend on small businesses for employment across the US. Your statement is ignorant and obviously uninformed.

[bhs7695 185]

If he's "in their hip pocket", how/why did he vote against their health care bill?

 

 

Because his vote was not needed and to vote for the health takeover would have meant death at the polls in November.

 

Therefore, he, along with a few other select members were spared the trouble of a Yes vote and the consequences that went with it.......

 

He votes with Peolosi 96% of the time and is an Obama yes man, once again you are taking the ONE incident in which he did not vote with the president and pretending that it proves him to be more independent. If that one vote means he is not an Obama lackey, then what do the countless YES votes make him?

 

Why else would Boucher have waited until the last min. before deciding which way he was going to vote???? No new information was released for several days leading up to the vote and Boucher still said he was "unsure." He was waiting for Pelosi to finish her backroom deals and let him know if they needed his vote or not.

 

For weeks and months, a majority of Boucher's district and pretty much the country were screaming to kill the bill. Boucher didn't bother to listen. He wanted to play puppet and I hope his job goes down in flames in two months.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Why else would Boucher have waited until the last min. before deciding which way he was going to vote???? No new information was released for several days leading up to the vote and Boucher still said he was "unsure." He was waiting for Pelosi to finish her backroom deals and let him know if they needed his vote or not.

 

For weeks and months, a majority of Boucher's district and pretty much the country were screaming to kill the bill. Boucher didn't bother to listen. He wanted to play puppet and I hope his job goes down in flames in two months.

 

You and me both. You and me both.

[BLU 10]

I moving to Europe...

[wave316 64]

If he's "in their hip pocket", how/why did he vote against their health care bill?

 

LOL... They told him to vote no because they had the necessary votes... if he would have voted yes,then Griffeth would have such a huge lead on him right now it would not be funny...These guys know how to play the system and Boucher is right there in their hip pocket..

[VHSLhelper 571]

America was founded on the principle of EQUAL JUSTICE, you are admitting in this post that you believe in punishing the rich for their success. This is not equality!

 

It is however in lock step with Marxism, which explains the reason that you agree with the President on so many issues.

 

Wealthy people create jobs, jobs equal wages, wage increases leads to more purchasing which generates more taxes.

 

I am "admitting" that taxes are needed, but taxing everyone the same is not fair.

 

let's see what Bob's monthly expenses are...

rent - 300

car - 200

car ins. - 200

health ins. - 200

food - 300

utils - 100

gas - 75

phone/cable/net - 75

TOTAL - 1,450

 

He works four 40-hour weeks, for 160 hours, and makes $8 an hour, earning 1,280. And he cleared..... wait.

 

So, how much can he afford to pay in taxes if he's not making enougn to cover his expenses???

 

And why is he not making enough? Because compananies don't pay enough.

THEY'RE making the money/profits ... THEY should pay the taxes..

 

How many jobs have the Smiths, McGlothlins, Bunns, Robertsons & Beinhorns created in the past decade? How many did Bonita & Pooch & Teresa Lee create?

 

I have never been employed by a poor man and probably never will be, but if things continue to "CHANGE," the way they have in past 19 months, I have a feeling that I will surely become one of those POOR PEOPLE..

 

Huh....I thought you worked at a local school. My bad.

I HAVE worked for a poor man... years ago, I worked for a teacher. He and his wife had 1 kid, but couldn't afford to live on their salary, so they opened a pizza place. He had betweem 6 & 10 workers. The "wealthy" didn't create THOSE jobs.

 

It is very simple CUT TAXES, CUT SPENDING AND the economy will flourish!

Bush and his cronies cut taxes but kept spending, Obama raises taxes and increases spending, both of these methods WILL NOT WORK! Never have and never will! Human History proves this point rather well.

 

That's what O's TRYING to do. Can't do everything all at 1 time, or everything will fall apart. Let's cut spending by 20%... we can cut the military pay by getting our guys back home, cut NASA big time, cut transportation projects.. but all that puts more ppl. out of work. But, of course, that DOES lead to the ultimate goal of taking in fewer taxes, right? And all those jobless ppl. with no income will definately lead to the economy flourishing.

 

And I'll say it again... Obama is doing neither of the things you say. A- He is reducing spending. B- He is not raising taves... the old tax cuts were temporary BY LAW... Congress didn't make them permanent, so 10 years was the limit. Personally, I think all the cuts should expire and if Congress wants to modify the tax code, then fine, but the Dems know the sheeple will believe what the Repubs say, so they have to do someting now to keep that at a minimum.

[VHSLhelper 571]

Because his vote was not needed and to vote for the health takeover would have meant death at the polls in November.

 

Therefore, he, along with a few other select members were spared the trouble of a Yes vote and the consequences that went with it.......

 

He votes with Peolosi 96% of the time and is an Obama yes man, once again you are taking the ONE incident in which he did not vote with the president and pretending that it proves him to be more independent. If that one vote means he is not an Obama lackey, then what do the countless YES votes make him?

 

A Democrat. We, the ppl. of the Fightin' Ninth, elected a Dem., and we expect him to be a Dem.

[bucfan64 307]

A Democrat. We, the ppl. of the Fightin' Ninth, elected a Dem., and we expect him to be a Dem.

 

No! We expect him to do what is best for his constituents! We expect him to LISTEN to his Constituents!

 

His own DEMOCRATS said during the primary, VOTE FOR HILLARY! Did he do what they told him to do then? NO!

[bucfan64 307]

I am "admitting" that taxes are needed, but taxing everyone the same is not fair.

.

 

If you believe in the concept that "all men are created equal," and I do, then it is not fair to tax one person more than another. Even Karl Marx believed in social equality for all, that is why EVERYONE under Communism "flourished" under his system!

 

 

And why is he not making enough? Because compananies don't pay enough.

THEY'RE making the money/profits ... THEY should pay the taxes..

.

 

Ever heard of a little thing called MINIMUM WAGE? It is this outrageous travesty that prevents businesses from paying more money, it eliminates work place competition and gives businesses the legal right to pay too little, this is a socialist idea!

 

Huh....I thought you worked at a local school. My bad.

I HAVE worked for a poor man... years ago, I worked for a teacher. He and his wife had 1 kid, but couldn't afford to live on their salary, so they opened a pizza place. He had betweem 6 & 10 workers. The "wealthy" didn't create THOSE jobs.

.

 

Yeah, I work at a local school, 90+% of my wages area a direct result of taxes on the WEALTHY and COPORATIONS! If you don't believe me, check out the NEA website!

 

I remember that guy, Ruffino's Pizza, they made a really great pizza! But, under your idea of TAX the rich, he wouldn't be able to expand his business too much, cause you would take a bigger piece of his pie, making him work harder to get ahead. I say, leave the guy alone, let him benefit from his success, which would give him further incentive to make more money, which in turn would create MORE JOBS. You say tax him more, which would punish his success!

 

That's what O's TRYING to do. Can't do everything all at 1 time, or everything will fall apart. Let's cut spending by 20%... we can cut the military pay by getting our guys back home, cut NASA big time, cut transportation projects.. but all that puts more ppl. out of work. But, of course, that DOES lead to the ultimate goal of taking in fewer taxes, right? And all those jobless ppl. with no income will definately lead to the economy flourishing.

.

 

The FREE MARKET cannot be controlled and manipulated by government. There must be failures and success stories. When a company or business fails, someone else will come along and do the job better or they too will fail. This allows the ones who get it right to become successful. NO ONE IS TOO BIG TO FAIL! You support bailing out a company like GM, when they prove to have a failed business model! The market would have taken care of this problem. This IS NOT SOCCER, everyone doesn't win, everyone isn't the MVP and everyone is not EQUAL!

 

And I'll say it again... Obama is doing neither of the things you say. A- He is reducing spending. B- He is not raising taves... the old tax cuts were temporary BY LAW... Congress didn't make them permanent, so 10 years was the limit. Personally, I think all the cuts should expire and if Congress wants to modify the tax code, then fine, but the Dems know the sheeple will believe what the Repubs say, so they have to do someting now to keep that at a minimum.

 

I am not a Republican sheep, I can assure you of that, INDEPENDENT ALL THE WAY! To argue that Barrack Obama has cut spending is one of the most outrageous quotes that I have heard in a long time. This man has turned up the printing presses and has QUADRUPLED DEFICIT SPENDING!

 

True the old tax cuts were temporary by law, the reason that they were temporary was due to the lack of cooperation from the left in Congress. This same group now has the power to re-instate those tax cuts, if they so desire. My tax man has informed me that without these tax cuts, I stand to lose anywhere from $1,500 to 2,200 dollars come tax time in 2011. (albeit, a possibility that I could still be spared this cut and it could be just for folks over 250,00) Last time I checked, I am not one of the SO CALLED RICH, that the Bush tax credits "helped."

 

 

It is rather clear that you and I are not on the same page and will never be, at least we can agree on GOOD PIZZA! I am not defending the massive spending of the Bush administration, nor do I condone the same outrageous actions of the Obama Administration. I prefer smaller government, fair taxes (ie equal %) and free markets.

 

The following graph demonstrates deficit spending under Obama and Bush.

Edited September 17, 2010 by bucfan64