• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Here comes the debt

Sandhusker

Well-known member
After meeting with his economic team earlier today, President-elect Barak Obama predicted this afternoon that the United States would have trillion-dollar budget deficits "for years to come."

Obama said that Peter Orszag, Obama's choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, forcasted that the United States would have a budget deficit of $1 trillion "even before we start the next budget."

"We have already, that we are already looking, at a trillion dollar budget deficit or close to a trillion dollar budget deficit," Obama said. "And that potentially we've got trillion dollar deficits for years to come even with the economic recovery that we are working on at this point."

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

Didn't this guy campaign against Bush's spending and promise change?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Remember the first $1.2 Trillion are inherited from Bush's budget deficit- so much for "fiscal conservatism" :roll: (Bush inherited a budget surplus)

The other Trillions $ are what is being required to do and recommended by most leading economists to keep the country from imploding....Trillions $ that probably would never have had to be spent if GW had done his job as an administrator and even enforced the laws on the books- and provided the oversight which was the Administrations duty to do...

How many agencies now have the empolyees came forward and said "we were told to do nothing, shuffle paper, look busy" or "take an 8 year coffee break" or "change the facts to make it look good- or safe"

USDA, FDA, EPA, CDC, CFTC, SEC, etc. etc....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Remember the first $1.2 Trillion are inherited from Bush's budget deficit- so much for "fiscal conservatism" :roll: (Bush inherited a budget surplus)

The other Trillions $ are what is being required to do and recommended by most leading economists to keep the country from imploding....Trillions $ that probably would never have had to be spent if GW had done his job as an administrator and even enforced the laws on the books- and provided the oversight which was the Administrations duty to do...

How many agencies now have the empolyees came forward and said "we were told to do nothing, shuffle paper, look busy" or "take an 8 year coffee break" or "change the facts to make it look good- or safe"

USDA, FDA, EPA, CDC, CFTC, SEC, etc. etc....

Bush did NOT inherit a budget surplus, and if Congress would of went the way he and McCain were trying to steer us, we never would of had this housing debacle and there never would of been a bailout.

For every "leading economist" that you bring saying we have to spend more money to straigten our economy out, I can bring two that say it is disaster. FDR tried it - it didn't work. Maybe Obama should of gravitated toward history professors instead of Marxist ones....

This guy campaigned on "change" and blasted Bush for deficit spending, and how he's proposing the biggest deficit spending policy in the history of the country so he can follow a policy that has been proved a failure. This moron is taking us into a depression as fast as his little Socialist legs can carry us.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Remember the first $1.2 Trillion are inherited from Bush's budget deficit- so much for "fiscal conservatism" :roll: (Bush inherited a budget surplus)

The other Trillions $ are what is being required to do and recommended by most leading economists to keep the country from imploding....Trillions $ that probably would never have had to be spent if GW had done his job as an administrator and even enforced the laws on the books- and provided the oversight which was the Administrations duty to do...

How many agencies now have the empolyees came forward and said "we were told to do nothing, shuffle paper, look busy" or "take an 8 year coffee break" or "change the facts to make it look good- or safe"

USDA, FDA, EPA, CDC, CFTC, SEC, etc. etc....

Bush did NOT inherit a budget surplus,

Are you sure about your facts :???:

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
-----------------------
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002928?page=1
How can you have a surplus and still increase the debt?

But, this isn't about Bush, this is about Obama planning on running a bigger deficit than any administration in history so that he can follow a policy that FDR proved was a failure - after promising change from the previous administration's deficit spending.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002928?page=1
How can you have a surplus and still increase the debt?

But, this isn't about Bush, this is about Obama planning on running a bigger deficit than any administration in history so that he can follow a policy that FDR proved was a failure - after promising change from the previous administration's deficit spending.

Interest on already borrowed money from years gone by....

And it definitely is about Bush- who spent the most of any President in history- and built the biggest bureacracy and national debt- and caused the situation that requires the spending now...

There was 6 years when the Repubs had full control of D.C- and they threw out "fiscal conservatism" and spent like drunken sailors- while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country...
Thats why even many very conservative economists say we have to spend it now to try and patch the damage and keep the economy from coming to a complete standstill...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002928?page=1
How can you have a surplus and still increase the debt?

But, this isn't about Bush, this is about Obama planning on running a bigger deficit than any administration in history so that he can follow a policy that FDR proved was a failure - after promising change from the previous administration's deficit spending.

Interest on already borrowed money from years gone by....

And it definitely is about Bush- who spent the most of any President in history- and built the biggest bureacracy and national debt- and caused the situation that requires the spending now...

There was 6 years when the Repubs had full control of D.C- and they threw out "fiscal conservatism" and spent like drunken sailors- while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country...
Thats why even many very conservative economists say we have to spend it now to try and patch the damage and keep the economy from coming to a complete standstill...

Gee how eazy you forget Bush was plunged into a war on terrorist and the money he spent was keeping you safe from more attackes. But hey why should what he spent the money on matter right Oldtimer? :wink:

And wasn't it the New York Times in 1999 that said Democratic President Clinton (you remember him the "skirt chaser") was incouraging Fanny and Freddy to get into Sub prime so why is it all of a sudden the Republicans that caused this problem. :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002928?page=1
How can you have a surplus and still increase the debt?

But, this isn't about Bush, this is about Obama planning on running a bigger deficit than any administration in history so that he can follow a policy that FDR proved was a failure - after promising change from the previous administration's deficit spending.

Interest on already borrowed money from years gone by....

And it definitely is about Bush- who spent the most of any President in history- and built the biggest bureacracy and national debt- and caused the situation that requires the spending now...

There was 6 years when the Repubs had full control of D.C- and they threw out "fiscal conservatism" and spent like drunken sailors- while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country...
Thats why even many very conservative economists say we have to spend it now to try and patch the damage and keep the economy from coming to a complete standstill...

From your post, "It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt.

The chart shows quite clearly that the debt rose.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about Obama's irresponsible deficit spending, especially after what he said during his campaign, but this thread is about his plans. If you want to talk about Bush's spending, start a new thread.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002928?page=1
How can you have a surplus and still increase the debt?

But, this isn't about Bush, this is about Obama planning on running a bigger deficit than any administration in history so that he can follow a policy that FDR proved was a failure - after promising change from the previous administration's deficit spending.

Interest on already borrowed money from years gone by....

And it definitely is about Bush- who spent the most of any President in history- and built the biggest bureacracy and national debt- and caused the situation that requires the spending now...

There was 6 years when the Repubs had full control of D.C- and they threw out "fiscal conservatism" and spent like drunken sailors- while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country...
Thats why even many very conservative economists say we have to spend it now to try and patch the damage and keep the economy from coming to a complete standstill...

From your post, "It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt.

The chart shows quite clearly that the debt rose.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about Obama's irresponsible deficit spending, especially after what he said during his campaign, but this thread is about his plans. If you want to talk about Bush's spending, start a new thread.

Sorry Sandhusker got off topic and I should know better when dealing with Oldtimer. :wink: I too would like to know why when Obama campaigned on "Change" is he falling way short of any noticeable "change" in policy or staff. :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Quite simple, he said what it took to get elected and a bunch of yahoos drank the koolaid.
Yes and it is those koolaid drinking yahoos that will cowardly sit back and let this terrorist supporting fake get away with anything he wants without protesting for the TRUTH. Wouldn't Abe Lincoln be proud. :x :roll:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Quite simple, he said what it took to get elected and a bunch of yahoos drank the koolaid.
Yes and it is those koolaid drinking yahoos that will cowardly sit back and let this terrorist supporting fake get away with anything he wants without protesting for the TRUTH. Wouldn't Abe Lincoln be proud. :x :roll:


Ya'll ever think and remember that Bush did the same thing to re-elected??


Remember, WMD's and they're coming to kill us all in our own LR's.......remember all the fear mongering???????

He said just what ya'll wanted to hear.... :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
Sandhusker said:
Quite simple, he said what it took to get elected and a bunch of yahoos drank the koolaid.
Yes and it is those koolaid drinking yahoos that will cowardly sit back and let this terrorist supporting fake get away with anything he wants without protesting for the TRUTH. Wouldn't Abe Lincoln be proud. :x :roll:


Ya'll ever think and remember that Bush did the same thing to re-elected??


Remember, WMD's and they're coming to kill us all in our own LR's.......remember all the fear mongering???????

He said just what ya'll wanted to hear.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

So you wail, moan, and gnash you teeth at what Bush did, but when Obama does the same, everything is hunky-dory. That's hypocritical and claiming to "change" and then not changing is lying.

Ya'll remember that Saddam actually USED WMDs? Or perhaps Ya'll's heads were in Ya'll's holes?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/spreadsheet/1002928?page=1
How can you have a surplus and still increase the debt?

But, this isn't about Bush, this is about Obama planning on running a bigger deficit than any administration in history so that he can follow a policy that FDR proved was a failure - after promising change from the previous administration's deficit spending.

Interest on already borrowed money from years gone by....

And it definitely is about Bush- who spent the most of any President in history- and built the biggest bureacracy and national debt- and caused the situation that requires the spending now...

There was 6 years when the Repubs had full control of D.C- and they threw out "fiscal conservatism" and spent like drunken sailors- while allowing the fatcat investors and bankers to rape and pillage the country...
Thats why even many very conservative economists say we have to spend it now to try and patch the damage and keep the economy from coming to a complete standstill...

Gee how eazy you forget Bush was plunged into a war on terrorist and the money he spent was keeping you safe from more attackes. But hey why should what he spent the money on matter right Oldtimer? :wink:

BULLPUCKEY- the main war on terrorism/Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan- and the war in Iraq was the Bush Oil War-- as Greenspan, Powell, and Clarke and many others have admitted- which according to Congressional hearings was based on false, censored, and purposely altered intelligence info given to Congress and as the result the true war on terrorism (Al Queada and Taliban in Afghanistan) has been set aside- and according to the military experts may not now be winnable.....The reason they are advising the US to change its occupation force tactics....

Remember Bush has doled out Billions of $ to Iraq monthly ( and can't account for Billions $)- rebuilding all of Iraq and handing out Billions $ in appeasement money to every Mullah standing on the corner with his hand out-- while letting the infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools, industry, electric grid, water systems, banking/investment system, etc., etc. ) of the US to fall apart....Currently doling out $10 Billion a month to the Iraqis to sqander- while they put all their oil profits into bank accounts and pay for little or nothing...Not even giving the US military in Iraq a break on fuel/oil prices and requiring the US military to pay $3-4-5 a gallon full price- while the Iraqis pay $.30.... :???:

Tell me what country Bush thought he was President of... :???:

Tell me how well Bush administrated us into the almost $12 Trillion dollar debt we are in- when he started out with a $5.7 Trillion debt...

8 years of Bush- along with 6 years total control by the "fiscal conservatives" more than doubled the National Debt.... :???: :( :(
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Ahem, this thread is about Obama running amok with the national credit card after chiding Bush for doing exactly that. He said he was going to change. That makes him a hypocrite and a liar - again.
 

jigs

Well-known member
OT you gotta be the dumbest person I have ever met on here...your hate for Bush over rides your ability to see anything that is true.... I have tried to be civil, but you are an ignorant fool. you wont even look at anything that paints Bush in a good way....

what is up your ass?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Remember the first $1.2 Trillion are inherited from Bush's budget deficit- so much for "fiscal conservatism" :roll: (Bush inherited a budget surplus)

The other Trillions $ are what is being required to do and recommended by most leading economists to keep the country from imploding....Trillions $ that probably would never have had to be spent if GW had done his job as an administrator and even enforced the laws on the books- and provided the oversight which was the Administrations duty to do...

How many agencies now have the empolyees came forward and said "we were told to do nothing, shuffle paper, look busy" or "take an 8 year coffee break" or "change the facts to make it look good- or safe"

USDA, FDA, EPA, CDC, CFTC, SEC, etc. etc....

Bush did NOT inherit a budget surplus,

Are you sure about your facts :???:

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
-----------------------
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.

The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

Not really carrying to go look up the figures, but Clinton's last budget he left would have been reflected in 2001 figures wouldn't it? Clinton set the Budget for 2001 before Bush got in office. And if memory serves me he did not leave a surplus on that last budget. Even if it appeared to be a surplus in 2000 them our not the figures for 2001 which is a Clinton Budget not a Bush one.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
jigs said:
OT you gotta be the dumbest person I have ever met on here...your hate for Bush over rides your ability to see anything that is true.... I have tried to be civil, but you are an ignorant fool. you wont even look at anything that paints Bush in a good way....

what is up your ass?

Not sure OT even believes any of that, I think he is just bored and gets his jollies off of arguing. He has mentioned before that him and his buddy use to take different sides of political arguments just for fun.

That would explain why he has switched political sides in the past few years on Ranchers. His old post do not seem anything like how he is now.

He has also admitted to be for and against people like Bush, McCain, Hillary etc.......That would help to explain he just messes with us, and we probably have no idea how he really believes.
 
Top