jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (28 posts)

Why aren't people concerned that Obama has added over $5 trillion to our debt so

  1. Cassie Smith profile image69
    Cassie Smithposted 5 years ago

    Why aren't people concerned that Obama has added over $5 trillion to our debt so far?

    Are these numbers so big as to be meaningless and people can't grasp that figure or are so many people out of a job that they have to deal with their personal situation first.?

  2. Attikos profile image79
    Attikosposted 5 years ago

    The demwit line is:

    a. It's Bush's fault.
    b. Obama is the most fiscally responsible president in our lifetime.

    80% of the mass media carry their water, so that's mostly what most people hear, most of the time. The press prides itself on being the nation's opinion shaper, and the nature of the opinion it has shaped on this issue is unconcern.

  3. passthejelly profile image78
    passthejellyposted 5 years ago

    Yeah I find this question extremely biased.  If you are going to fish for Romney support the least you could do is be a little more discrete about it.

    1. The Frog Prince profile image79
      The Frog Princeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Actually it is a valid question so why don't you tell us why you don't seem to be concerned about him adding working on $6 trillion to our national debt?  I didn't read the name Romney in the question or are you that partisan?

    2. eternals3ptember profile image59
      eternals3ptemberposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I was going to agree with you Prince, but after looking at the person asking the question there is probably a personal bias.

    3. lone77star profile image84
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Rombama = Obamney. There are other candidates.

  4. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 5 years ago

    Because some people understand that looking at the raw debt addition is an inaccurate method, Obama has reduced spending (when adjusted for inflation) from the Bush years by about 2.6% and because I am going to follow the "dimwit" line tongue much of that money is spending from Bush measures like the Iraq war which cost about a trillion dollars under Obama before he could end it.

    Your question also demonstrates you don't understand how budgets work, the 2009 budget is a Bush budget (look it up) presidents make the budget for the next year after elections so actually 3.8 has been added to the deficit by Obama, he has reduced spending and a lot of that deficit is the result of measures he bears no responsibility for and opposed.

    1. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's "demwit," not dimwit. Some are quite bright, but for the politics.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I see big_smile , missed that.

    3. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What a demwit.  The 2009 budget was not signed by Bush, Pelosi made sure that Obama signed it.  The 2009 budget was signed March 11, 2009. Duh!

      And you forget that the Republicans took the House and were able to cut the Obama budget down a little.

    4. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      *sigh* Obama just signs the first budget he cannot make adjustments because it as already passed the year before, if he were to veto it then there would have to be a government shut-down.
      Biggest reduction budget was 2010 before congress changed

    5. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Since it was the Demwits who controlled the House and the Senate in 2009, Obama signed what the Demwits wanted, why would he change it? 

      Reduction in 2010?  LOL!

      Yeesh.

    6. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No it was George Bush who made the 2009 budget which was argued with congress then passed just like current Obama budgets.
      2010 saw an almost 2% reduction in spending which is the biggest reduction in more than a decade.

    7. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      2010 budget of $3.6 trillion submitted and signed by Obama in a Demwit controlled Congress vs. the 2009 budge of $3.1 trillion submitted by Bush to Demwit controlled Congress then signed by Obama.  $3.6

    8. The Frog Prince profile image79
      The Frog Princeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Boy what a crock of Josak that was Josak.  Of course he bears no responsibility.  All he's done since assuming office is blame other people.  You do that too concerning your life too son?

    9. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05 … ken-sailor
      Wall street journal link to explain because I can't be bothered.

    10. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Ah yes that wonderful Nutting article that was already shot down by so many for the reasons that were already covered.  What a bunch of Malarkey.

    11. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You can have a Forbes article if you prefer. But you have to do better than "was already shot down"  with a reliable source.

    12. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So your saying the 3.5 trillion spent in 2009 which included the stimulus of 900 plus billion was actually a budget proposed before the stimulus of 2.6 trillion. That's a 300 billion spending cut by President Bush or did Bush create the stimulus also

  5. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    The term debt combined with big numbers scare people. You buy your first house and you are $100,000 in debt. It is scary. Can you afford the note and still save enough to send your children to college while meeting every day expenses.

    Understanding the debt is very complicated. I have written a couple Hubs about it and others have done the same. If you read all of them, you will either be angry that none of know what we are talking about or confused over the fact that we disagree so much.

    Because of that uncertainty, the idea of a $5 trillion debt is absolutely horrifying to some people.

    1. The Frog Prince profile image79
      The Frog Princeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      All one has to do is study this clock Larry. People fail to pay attention to the unfunded liabilities.  That's the part that is owed and is covered with IOU's.

      http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No US debt is ever covered by anything like an IOU US debt is sold as an investment to groups and nations willing to buy it.

    3. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Because of exchange rates and interest rates,that is always a moving target.

    4. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      All debt instruments that are not backed by collateral is an IOU. The only thing that backs a treasury obligation is the "Full Faith and Credit" of the Treasury.  That is the definition of an IOU regardless of who the purchaser is. Just a formal one.

  6. LandmarkWealth profile image80
    LandmarkWealthposted 5 years ago

    The 2008 Federal Spending was 2.982 Trillion.  2009 was 3.517 Trillion.  That is about an 18% increase in spending in one year.  The projected Federal Spending for 2012 is about 3.8 Trillion.  Any comment about the President cutting spending is completely false.  The data can be found here.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/yea … 1n#usgs302
    He decline in the rate of spending happened after the mid term elections created political gridlock and prevented any further out of control spending.  About 2/3 rd’s of the Federal Budget is entitlement spending and is mandated by law, so this can’t be pinned on the President and his administration.  So you must look at the discretionary budget.  The portion’s of the presidents stimulus bill that was sown into the baseline budget on a permanent basis was a 24% increase in discretionary spending in just 2 years.  If you include the portions that get phased out it would be over an 80% increase in two years.  Either way, this meets the definition of out of control.  Meanwhile even with a super majority in congress over that two years, this is the first administration in modern history that has yet to pass one single budget over its entire term.  The last budget the President proposed could not even earn a single vote from even one member of congress including his own party.  So if the prior administration was responsible for the 2009 spending of 3.5 trillion and in that figure President Obama spent 900 billion on a stimulus bill, that would have to mean that President Bush must have had a budget planned for 2.6 trillion which was a 300 billion dollar spending CUT.  This was clearly not the case and blows up that theory.
    Some believe that this spending was necessary, yet the 2 trillion sitting on corporate balance sheets should be ample evidence to the contrary.  The private sector is doing precisely what it did in the 1930’s.  Just waiting out the gov’t policies that crowd out private activity.  Unfortunately, the few areas that would have benefited like needed infrastructure was virtually non-existent in the stimulus bill. Instead we gave 20-30% budget increases to agencies like OSHA which will never get cut.  Now we have a debt to GDP ratio in excess of 90%.  The problem is there is a lot of evidence that once you cross that threshold you will severely impair long term growth and have a lot of trouble growing your way out of this problem.

    1. Cassie Smith profile image69
      Cassie Smithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Landmark for your excellent answer.  It explains the situation to a lot of people.

    2. LandmarkWealth profile image80
      LandmarkWealthposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, whats more disturbing is today is the first time since 2009 that SS announced an increase.  So the last two years the adm didn't even have to deal with that increase in the budget for one of the largest line items.

  7. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    I would argue that we are all very concerned about it. I remember the late 1990s when we thought our $4-5 Trillion debt was a lot. In 12 years, the world went from a bad situation to a situation that is not sustainable. I think people just don't know what they can do about it. The argument that is always made is, should we raise taxes, should we cut regulatory agencies that make food safe, or should we steal from the social security pot? I think cuts could be made in every agency and sector of the government. The State Department spends too much money for its size. Every department or agency has too many staffers and advisors and top officials. There are technically about 8 or 10 de facto secretaries of defense right now. There are so many senior people doing so many things in each agency that no one really knows who's in charge of what anymore. The West Wing has a staff of just under 2,000 people! These guys are talking about raising our taxes when there is this level of decadence? Air Force One is basically a pleasure yacht for the sky. Of course, the elephant in the room is the military in terms of cost.

 
working