Visualizing Obama Spending Cuts

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've not seen one person on this board who has ever said veterans didn't earn their pension or their insurance. In fact, I've seen people here - including me - say directly to you that you've earned those benefits, and you deserve them. People have only said that veterans had those benefits, and it was paid for by our taxes to the government.

The victim card you play is really old.

Whatever

[Riot]

US National Debt history by President. And other interesting facts about the national debt - who did what to $$$

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[Princess Doreen]

Bush II's 8-year administration saw a rise in the National Debt of approximately $4.35 trillion. The first 4 years of his administration had a Democratic House and Senate.

In 2 years 2009 - 2010, the Obama administration has seen a rise in the National Debt of $3.54 trillion, and that's with a Democratic House & Senate.

Is it the President's fault spending is so high during their administration or is it those who control the House and Senate?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

Date Dollar Amount

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 Obama
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 Bush II
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 Clinton

[dellinger63]

Riot can you add Jimmy Carter into that graph? Give him the praise he deserves.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Bush II's 8-year administration saw a rise in the National Debt of approximately $4.35 trillion. The first 4 years of his administration had a Democratic House and Senate.

In 2 years 2009 - 2010, the Obama administration has seen a rise in the National Debt of $3.54 trillion, and that's with a Democratic House & Senate.

Is it the President's fault spending is so high during their administration or is it those who control the House and Senate?

Where did that debt come from? Far more to it than just numbers. What items made up Bush II's rise? What items made up the rise after November 2008?

[Princess Doreen]

[quote=Riot;752281]

Where did that debt come from? Far more to it than just numbers. What items made up Bush II's rise? What items made up the rise after November 2008?

Oh, geez, the numbers you post have validity - everyone else's are just numbers.

9/11 and building up the military that Clinton dismantled to balance the budget cost a pretty penny.

Despite what anyone else says, I applaud Bush for going into Iraq. If he hadn't, what kind of powder keg would we be dealing with today with that Hitleresque nut job still in power?!~

Repubs pandering to the left during the 2nd half of the Bush administration and buying into Democratic reckless spending philosophy.

You tell me what items made up the rise after 11/08. I'd say it's just some more reckless spending on the backs of the American tax payer.

We should get the hell out of Afghanistan - talk about a worthless cause. Fly the drones, take out the poppy fields, weapons, terrorists and bring the soldiers home. They are dying needlessly, and there doesn't seem to be any Democrats crying about it like they did with the war in Iraq.

I feel the sorriest for the youngest generation - they are going to be paying dearly for the debt that is accumulating exponentially with no end in sight. It has to stop. There has to be some brakes on this runaway spending train.

[Riot]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Oh, geez, the numbers you post have validity - everyone else's are just numbers.

No. That's not the point. Nobody is debating the debt numbers. We've all posted the same numbers. The debate here is about who increased that debt.

For example, it's ridiculous and false to say Obama increased the debt "this" much, when billions of those monies spent in 2009-2010 during his administration were not monies he approved and spent.

Billions were approved by Bush - the wars, the first stimulus, TARP, etc - all that spending was created by Bush, but those monies were not all spent and done with in the last 5 weeks of his administration. Obama couldn't have recalled spending those monies if he'd wanted to, it was passed law, it was set those monies would be spent even if McCain had won. And that was a Bush II spend.

So look at Obama's spending during his administration, but you cannot take the billions spent in 2009 and 2010, due to first stimulus, TARP, bank bailouts, Bush's war commitments, etc and blame Obama (or McCain if it were McCain) for that. That's crazy.

[Princess Doreen]

[quote=Riot;752303]

No. That's not the point. Nobody is debating the debt numbers. We've all posted the same numbers. The debate here is about who increased that debt.

For example, it's ridiculous and false to say Obama increased the debt "this" much, when billions of those monies spent in 2009-2010 during his administration were not monies he approved and spent.

Billions were approved by Bush - the wars, the first stimulus, TARP, etc - all that spending was created by Bush, but those monies were not all spent and done with in the last 5 weeks of his administration. Obama couldn't have recalled spending those monies if he'd wanted to, it was passed law, it was set those monies would be spent even if McCain had won. And that was a Bush II spend.

So look at Obama's spending during his administration, but you cannot take the billions spent in 2009 and 2010, due to first stimulus, TARP, bank bailouts, Bush's war commitments, etc and blame Obama (or McCain if it were McCain) for that. That's crazy.

Oh, sure, let's drag out the "Let's blame Bush" chestnut. Guess Bush didn't inherit a tanking economy when he took office and then get hit with the 9/11 disaster 8 months into office?!~

Should the projected 2011 deficit be blamed on Bush? Obama is going to balance the budget by trimming $1.1 trillion over 10 years.

The numbers don't wash.

[Danzig]

[quote=Princess Doreen;752288]

Originally Posted by Riot

Oh, geez, the numbers you post have validity - everyone else's are just numbers.

9/11 and building up the military that Clinton dismantled to balance the budget cost a pretty penny.

Despite what anyone else says, I applaud Bush for going into Iraq. If he hadn't, what kind of powder keg would we be dealing with today with that Hitleresque nut job still in power?!~Repubs pandering to the left during the 2nd half of the Bush administration and buying into Democratic reckless spending philosophy.

You tell me what items made up the rise after 11/08. I'd say it's just some more reckless spending on the backs of the American tax payer.

We should get the hell out of Afghanistan - talk about a worthless cause. Fly the drones, take out the poppy fields, weapons, terrorists and bring the soldiers home. They are dying needlessly, and there doesn't seem to be any Democrats crying about it like they did with the war in Iraq.

I feel the sorriest for the youngest generation - they are going to be paying dearly for the debt that is accumulating exponentially with no end in sight. It has to stop. There has to be some brakes on this runaway spending train.

seriously? how many trillions spent, how many lives lost, yet to be lost, over that guy? he was a chained dog. and i guess you saw that the big whistleblower on wmd's has now said it was all made up. that was the biggest lie fed to this country in years.

[Princess Doreen]

[quote=Danzig;752718]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

seriously? how many trillions spent, how many lives lost, yet to be lost, over that guy? he was a chained dog. and i guess you saw that the big whistleblower on wmd's has now said it was all made up. that was the biggest lie fed to this country in years.

Colin Powell was the biggest convincer of them all that WMD's existed. And,
I haven't been convinced that there weren't WMD's but there was enough time to spirit them away somewhere, somehow, someway.