Debt officially doubles under Obama to 20 TRILLION

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

Wow what a legacy...

Now wait a minute we haven't given bds a chance to reply yet.
He'll have charts and graphs to prove the debt and deficit was all done
under Bush and show us how Obama has been a fiscal conservative. 
Us right-wingers will get shot down by the facts yet again.  lol

Despite RECORD taxes brought in under Obummer, we still can't balance or write a true budget.

Obamasucks wrote:Despite RECORD taxes brought in under Obummer, we still can't balance or write a true budget.

Repeat after me.  WE WILL NEVER HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AGAIN.
Not with Obama,  not with Hillary,  not with Sanders,  not with Trump,  not with Jeb Bush,  not with Ted Cruz,  not with Carson.  Not with nobody.

Well actually I take that back.  We will have a balanced budget again when it's not politically impossible to do so.  And since that aint gonna be in your or my lifetime,  or in your children or grandchildrens'  lifetime,  then it's as pointless to talk about a balanced budget now as it is to talk about blacksmiths and typewriters and drive-in theaters.  Because neither that nor the balanced budget is ever coming back.  It's time has passed.

record taxes......you have to live in the twilight zone. It is the loss of revenue and fighting expeditions in the middle east which has caused our debt in the last 15 years......tax cuts and a blank check to the defense dept. has consequences.

(CNN) - President Obama declared on Wednesday that Democrats can be trusted on the budget because, "the last time the budget was balanced was under a Democratic president."

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
- Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate.

Bottom Line: Democrat Bill Clinton was president the last time the federal budget was balanced, and Republicans controlled Congress

ppaca wrote:

Bottom Line: Democrat Bill Clinton was president the last time the federal budget was balanced, and Republicans controlled Congress

"Last time" is right.  VERY last time.
The issue now should not be about a balanced budget,  it should be about how high does the debt have to go before the American people start suffering as a result of it. 

I know how bds despises this analogy and believes it to be Goober'ism,  but the analogy would be to what a household faces. 
How big does the household debt have to get before the household is struggling with paying for necessities because so much of it's budget is paying for interest payments on the debt?
And how big does the household debt have to get before lenders stop extending further credit?

What a crummy attitude, Bob.  So, now you're a right-winger?  I guess you are, since you admitted voting for Romney.  When will you realize that the GOP is not fiscally conservative?  

It has nothing to do with who the president is,  Tex.
Regardless of who the president is,  our national economy is now dependent on federal spending of many kinds.  Entitlements,  military spending,  the whole enchillada.
Without that federal spending,  we would probably be in a perpetual recession.
So to avoid that,  our government,  republican and democrat,  has resorted to borrowing.
And both political parties have either one form of spending or another now directly tied to their voter base.
The politicians don't spend money all of their own accord.  They are being pressured to spend money by the people who benefit from that spending.  The same people who vote them into office.

As examples,  old people want medicare.  The panhandle people want military spending.  Younger people want obamacare.  Everybody wants roads and bridges. Poor people want welfare and food stamps.  And so forth and so on.

So far everybody has had everything because of borrowed money.  Borrowing the money alleviates the sacrifices that would be made if the government paid all it's bills without borrowing.

I repeat.  How long that can continue until the borrowing and the interest on the borrowing starts creating new sacrifices and new suffering for the people should be the concern.  Not balancing the budget which is no longer politically even possible.

Any time you hear a presidential candidate say "I'm going to balance the budget",  put him on a polygraph and see what it tells you.

Bob,

We can chew gum and walk. I know this is an alien concept for you. We can reduce the deficit the same way any of us do the same. Increase revenue and cut expenses. It is not difficult, and to argue having large deficits is an economic boost to America is absurd. With experienced and knowledgeable folks who have governed setting the goal of a balanced budget, it can be achieved and it will be achieved. The problem develops when somebody thinks it can only be done with more income, or somebody believes it can only be done with cutting expenses. The solution is a commons sense combination.

There has been a known political strategy to increase military spending and debt creation, only to put fiscal pressure on social programs in America which cause those who ran up the debt to blame those social programs. It is a brilliant strategy because people believe the propaganda, and the Oligarchy smiles all the way to the bank with huge tax cuts and sweetheart subsidy in the tax code.

2seaoat wrote: to argue having large deficits is an economic boost to America is absurd.

You've just totally parted company with the democrat economists.  Because they would tell you all the borrowing required to fund the big government "stimulus" is what got us out of recession. 

No what is actually absurd is not that.  It's your being so naive that you actually don't understand that federal spending is now a crucial component of the economy. 
All you have to do is look at the First Congressional District of Florida as the evidence of it.  lol

2seaoat wrote:There has been a known political strategy to increase military spending and debt creation, only to put fiscal pressure on social programs in America which cause those who ran up the debt to blame those social programs.   It is a brilliant strategy because people believe the propaganda, and the Oligarchy smiles all the way to the bank with huge tax cuts and sweetheart subsidy in the tax code.

No actually the propaganda and the "political strategy" of both political parties,  and their media mouthpieces,  has been to blame the borrowing on only what the other side wants to spend money on.   And to take no responsibility for what their side wants to spend the money on.

Bob wrote:

Any time you hear a presidential candidate say "I'm going to balance the budget",  put him on a polygraph and see what it tells you.

Actually,  that would be my recommendation for restructuring these carnival shows (aka "debates").

I'm not much interested in who's asking the questions,  megyn kelly or john harwood.  What I want is to have all the candidates,  both parties,  be wired to real time polygraphs for every question,  and the polygraph results to be scrolling across the screen.

Bob wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:Despite RECORD taxes brought in under Obummer, we still can't balance or write a true budget.

Repeat after me.  WE WILL NEVER HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AGAIN.
Not with Obama,  not with Hillary,  not with Sanders,  not with Trump,  not with Jeb Bush,  not with Ted Cruz,  not with Carson.  Not with nobody.

Well actually I take that back.  We will have a balanced budget again when it's not politically impossible to do so.  And since that aint gonna be in your or my lifetime,  or in your children or grandchildrens'  lifetime,  then it's as pointless to talk about a balanced budget now as it is to talk about blacksmiths and typewriters and drive-in theaters.  Because neither that nor the balanced budget is ever coming back.  It's time has passed.

Then our children will see a country like Greece and closer to home, Chicago.

Bob wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:Despite RECORD taxes brought in under Obummer, we still can't balance or write a true budget.

Repeat after me.  WE WILL NEVER HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AGAIN.
Not with Obama,  not with Hillary,  not with Sanders,  not with Trump,  not with Jeb Bush,  not with Ted Cruz,  not with Carson.  Not with nobody.

Well actually I take that back.  We will have a balanced budget again when it's not politically impossible to do so.  And since that aint gonna be in your or my lifetime,  or in your children or grandchildrens'  lifetime,  then it's as pointless to talk about a balanced budget now as it is to talk about blacksmiths and typewriters and drive-in theaters.  Because neither that nor the balanced budget is ever coming back.  It's time has passed.

Then our children will see a country like Greece and closer to home, Chicago.

Markle wrote:
Then our children will see a country like Greece and closer to home, Chicago.

If it happens it won't be because ONLY Bush caused it or ONLY Obama caused it.   There will be a lot of other players to blame.  And just like in Greece,  the people will be the enablers.

Oh and I'll be one of the people to blame.  I want that Medicare come hell or high water.  With two kinds of cancer and now Sometimers to boot,  without it I would be destined for medical bankruptcy.