Oh no--even mainstream media admits that Obama is worse than Bush on Debt!

You know things are bad for Obama when CBS publicizes the fact that the national debt has increased more during the 3 years and 2 months Obama has been in office than the 8 years of Bush's presidency.

CBS states that "The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services." The analogy would be that the interest on a person's credit cards is more than his/hers yearly income--just the interest--not counting the amount of the charges!

All of the smoke and mirrors that Obama and his lackeys use to deflect the fact that he is ruining the U.S. economy aren't working. You and I are living this disaster. We know about our friends and family who are out-of-work, under-employed, and struggling to make ends meet. No amount of government-produced unemployment data can convince us that things are improving, and no amount of blaming Bush can be factually supported.

The CBS article ends with this chilling statistic, "If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms."

If you'd like to read the entire story, please see:


No votes yet

Wait for it, wait for it........Wolfart is typing his excuse and blaming conservatives. Any second now.....

and in the 12 years of Reagan-Bush #41, the debt quadrupled! That's a 300% increase!

In 1982, Reagan also led the Congress to increase taxes on the middle class by several tens of billions of dollars to maintain his 1981 tax cuts which disproportionately favored the wealthiest Americans. And, at the time, we heard few so-called conservatives criticizing President Reagan. I guess it all depends upon "whose ox is being gored".

Remember, it was Bush #41 who, in the 1980 Republican Primary campaign, labeled Reagan's plan to increase defense spending significantly and cut taxes: "Voodoo economics". Then he became a full partner with the Voodoo master himself!

And this has to do with Obama's record-setting amount of debt how?

It doesn't. Dale's gun isn't loaded, but he sure is waving it around a lot, figuratively speaking. That's how Liberals usually 'argue'; maybe you'll get scared and run away, which is what they usually count on.

Dale can't handle the truth that when The Messiah was elected in 2008, he was just another step downward in national stability. The numbers can't lie; they are too clear and too huge. Since he can't hide the truth, Dale et al can try to make it look small or inconsequential.

Obama was a terrible choice in 2008, but the Liberals fell all over each other trying to be marked down in the Big Stupid Book for voting in the first Black President (which isn't even true, since Obama is mulatto, not Black, but I digress).

Sadly, pulling in a Republican President may invoke similar levels of debt, since we didn't riot when the President and Congress ran up $6 trillion in new debt together even in the throes of an obvious economic collapse. The bar has been raised. President Romney will probably run up $1 trillion in new debt each year, instead of President "Bar-Raised" Obama running up $1.5 trillion. A fiscally conservative candidate doesn't exist in the two major parties. That's not their goal.

Again with the percentage. You're either naive or deliberately misleading.
Between Reagan and Bush 41 they raised the national debt $4.1 trillion.
0bama's $4.939 trillion has that beaten in 38 months.

I guess he's good for something after all.

If the national debt was only a dollar, I wouldn't care if he raised it a thousand percent.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

What is Reagan and Bush's $4.1 trillion in today's dollars? It's probably closing to $8-9 trillion..

What makes up today's debt?

Bush's tax cut and a poor economy make up the bulk...

If one carefully examines this chart, you can see that it doesn't mean anything--in fact--it's purposefully deceptive. Here's why. The federal debt is incurred when the government spends more than it takes in (federal deficit). The government must borrow money (in the form of selling securities) to cover the difference.

Keep in mind that--by far--the number one category of federal government expenditures is transfer payments (social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, and welfare programs). Transfer payments are defined as the government giving out funding without expecting anything in return.

So how can someone ferret out the causes of the federal debt without featuring the number one contributor to the deficit--transfer payments? The analogy would be if a person spends $40,000 in a year that they make $35,000 and blames it on that extra gallon of milk they bought instead of the $2,000 television.

When I read the extremely small print under the chart indicating it was produced by the extremely liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities "think tank"--then it all made sense.

Remember, it was George H.W. Bush who first labeled Reagan's spending/taxing plan "Voodoo Economics"! Yes, Virginia, percentages DO matter. The total national debt was at a comparatively low base, but inflation was much higher, and interest rates were at historical highs, so it was a significant problem. Reagan stated that he would balance the budget through growth by pumpimg billions into the economy via his increased spending and decreased taxes. The economy did improve, but never enough to even significantly close the annual budgetary deficits, which increased the debt by 300% by the time Bush #43 finished the 12 years of "Voodoo Economics".

Then, Clinton was elected. Both the Republicans and Ross Perot predicted disaster. The Democrats contolled Congress, and they passed a true tax reform bill which raised taxes on those who could afford to pay more, and DECREASED taxes for average folks.

But, Americans are impatient. It was a medium-term fix, and Americans want instant answers, so Republicans took over Congress. Still, Ross Perot predicted disaster...same old, same old, he stated. We need a businessman like him to balance the Federal budget. Clinton proved him wrong. Remember when the Republican Congress passed budgets with greater predicted deficits than Clinton would accept? It was Democrat Bill Clinton who vetoed those overspending Republican budgets, something Perot never envisioned! Democrat Bill Clinton had SURPLUSES IN HIS LAST THREE BUDGETS. Also, projections showed us PAYING OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT!!

Then W was selected -- through a partisan vote on the non-partisan U.S. Supreme Court -- to be President, our first President with an MBA. Perot must have been encouraged, even though W failed at every business he'd ever run. (The Texas Rangers have flourished since W left, for example!) What did W do? He had two examples: The Reagan/Bush#41 "Voodoo Economics", or the Clinton, actually balancing the budget example. And W chose [drum roll, please] VOO-DOO ECONOMICS. Predictably, the deficits started to pile up! Then, the financial institutions which were "too big to fail" were bailed out by the Republican Congress and W before he left office!

Now, you may skew these facts any way you want to do it, but there are some facts that are undeniable. One -- Clinton had three surplus budgets. Two -- W turned them into large deficits. Three -- Republicans pushed through the bailouts of the giant international financial institutions which forced huge budget deficits upon our Federal Government. Four -- the economy is improving, albeit very slowly. Five -- American investors have seen their stock portfolios rise significantly since January 20, 2009.

they are accurate. Ideologues HATE facts. The numbers are the numbers. Don't let these facts get in the way of your opinions...never ever!

Um, please note the graph is wrong. A tax cut doesn't create debt. Borrowing, creates debt. Spending, creates the borrowing. And a lack of fiscal rectitude, drives that spending. Tax cuts have nothing to do with any of that.

The debt does NOT rise from tax cuts. Period.

Let's say John Doe makes $30,000 per year and spends $30,000 per year. Debt equals zero. One day John Doe loses his job. He now makes $0. He adjusts his spending, but has to borrow a little to pay for things like food & shelter. So he spends $10,000 . His debt is now $10,000. YOU would say his spending created his debt, without acknowledging his job loss. And that's what makes you a complete moron.


This is like saying 1+1=2. It is a universal truth.

Pink Slip

Only Congress, controls the purse-strings !
MEANING: they pass all Laws, including those tied to spending !

Ronald Reagan, had 100% D, control of both Houses of Congress. They spent the tax cuts budget surplus like drunken union bureaucrats in Vegas !
The same for Bush 41....all majority of D's or RINO'S, to deal with.
And, the same for Bush 43, after 2006 , when the D's, went on a spending binge that hasn't stopped yet !?

It is perplexing that the blame Liberal's , always give just one man for the reason we have a $16 TRILLION deficit .
Except that is, when it's one of their boys in office ?!

Slick Willy:" I can see budget deficits for as far as the eye can see"...2004.
Two years later a R majority in both Houses of Congress,balanced the budget in 2006 ?!

Magical or prudent fiscal governance ?

In a recent interview, Sam Donaldson was asked about his career. He referred to setting Ronald Reagan up for one of his most famous quotes at a news conference. The exchange went like this:
"Mr. President, tonight you blamed this continuing recession on Congress and mistakes of the past. Doesn't any of the blame belong to you?" Reagan's reply, "Yes, for many years I was a Democrat."

Three reasons:

1. Great recession
2. Continued Bush tax cuts
3. Continued wars in the name of empire

Pink Slip

The reality is that tax cuts don't create debt--spending does!

"The reality is that tax cuts don't create debt--spending does!"

There are two sides to the budget equation, spending and revenue. In the case of the Bush tax cuts, spending was not adjusted to match the drop in revenue. Therefore, YES--the tax cuts created more debt.

Pink Slip

It was George H.W. Bush who stated that Ronald Reagan's plan to increase spending and cut taxes would create massive deficits. George H.W. Bush called this "Voodoo Economics". Bush #41 was right!

Many people who are still working have taken significant cuts in take-home pay in the last several years. They may be spending less, but still accumulating debt because of lower revenues [income]. DUH!

A government gains most of its revenue via taxes. If you cut taxes, the government gets less revenue. Even if the government spends the same amount after the tax cut, it will accumulate debt. Now, if you want to cut Mom's and Dad's (or Grandma's and Grandpa's) Medicare and Social Security enough, you can balance the budget. If you want to take Aunt Toby, and thousands like her, off of dialysis since she is already over 80 years old and on Medicare and Medicaid, you can balance the budget. If you want to deny a heart transplant to someone 71 years old to save the medicare and/or medicaid costs, it can be done. How about bringing ALL U.S. troops back from foreign lands! Those are the big money items! Specifically, where would you start to cut?

In 1937, after digging out from the worst of the Great Depression, the Federal Government tried to cut spending and balance the budget. Agencies were closed. Government jobs were cut. These actions plunged the nation into another deep recession.

Even Ronald Reagan understood that balancing the budget is a good thing when the economy is at or near capacity, and most people who want jobs can find them, but in tough times the government must put more money into the economy than it takes out in order to have the economy grow. The Reagan/Bush#41 deficits grew the economy, and most conservatives revere Reagan as an economic genius. He simply followed pure Keysian economic theory!

I know that neo-cons hate this reference, but, under Clinton, the economy grew and his last THREE BUDGETS HAD SURPLUSES!! Which conservative has done that in the last 90 years or so??


So pass a balanced budget amendment capping a limit to how much debt as a percentage of GDP that the gov't can have.

Oh wait, that's right you said it ties the hands of gov't. You know what, maybe it's hands should be tied.


Barry Sotero & the D's, deficitly spent another $7 TRILLION , in just 3.12 years since then ?!

Anyone recall the leftist's cry about , " on his watch " , blaming GW, for everything including gas prices at $1.85 ?

No, I guess liars don't and wouldn't ....

Dumbocrats always try and say that the Republicans are going to "take your social security and medicare". The truth of the matter is 0bamacare cut $500 billion from medicare, and the payroll tax cut extension that obumble pushed so hard for will take $105 billion out of social security by the end of the year.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Mikey deserves credit for being honest about the conservative views on Social Security and Medicare. You just won't admit to it. Are you running for office or something?

Social security would be perfectly viable, if the democrats had left it separate from the general fund. They didn't, (iirc, Johnson figuratively opened the lockbox) so it's more than likely screwed. You can't pay people with iou's.

And I'm sick of people referring to social security in the same light as, for example, welfare.
Working people pay into ss their entire working lives.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Careful, JEEP! With statements like these, some will think that you are too much like a D-word.

Call me anything....except a liberal, or late to dinner!

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

is that too many people misunderstood what Social Security was meant to do. It is not meant to be an exclusive retirement system. It is meant to be a floor to build upon for retirement.

I was born in 1947. When I was growing up, I remember some middle-aged adults saying how they were spending everything they made in "take-home pay" because, "I have Social Security!"

The Social Security funding problem for the future could be easily rectified. All that needs to be done is to increase the ceiling of income, above which Social Security payroll payments are not taken. As it stands, these payments are regressive, because they take a higher percentage of low and middle income workers' wages, than they do from highly paid managers.

The first two paragraphs you are right on.

The third, I personally have no problem with but good luck passing it. It for too long has been sold as the golden goose which is why Social Security scare tactics are used.

Partial privatization is a good way to save it. Currently it is backed by US bonds which are getting right now about 2.3% interest (traditionally 4% interest). If I as a SS payee were allowed partial privatization and invested it into the US common stock market (which tradionally achieves a 11-12% ten year return) then I could actually eventually outpace what I put into my SS. Of course this would require it to actually be in a "lockbox" and politicians not touch the golden goose.

Even if we passed a Constitutional Amendment putting it into a lock box all it will take is one party to gain control of all three chambers of elected government and determine that since SS is commerce and all retirees will eventually need healthcare they should be able to take your SS to pay for your healthcare because as the government they're smarter than you and know better what's best for you and they'd use a open reading of the commerce clause in which to do it.


The problem I have is this implied notion that the only way a person can save is with the money that is currently going to Social Security. The message I'm trying to get across is that Americans spend too much, and instead of saving, we run up credit card debt! We want everything NOW!!

I'm currently reading a book which has writings from various founding fathers and founding mothers. I just finished an excerpt from the last Poor Richard's Almanac by Ben Franklin. It is a suggestion to others to be frugal and save for the future.

Investing in stocks is organized, leagalized gambling. Ask those who invested in "safe" companies like Enron or Worldcom. Everyone should save BEYOND the mandatory amount taken for pensions. As a public employee, I had a greater percentage taken from my pay for a higher pension as a retiree. Even so, I saved and invested to supplement my retirement income, and I have no credit card debt, and I live in a modest, paid-up house purchased in 1974!

Your description of the US stock market is woefully simplistic and goes against every financial advisor in the country.

Buying individual stocks like Enron and Worldcom is risky, that is why no financial advisor recommends a day-trading portfolio. Meanwhile, investing in a diversified portfolio in a buy and hold strategy is not just recommended it is proven that it works.

The stock market grows at 11-12% every ten years. This is a fact and is even true with recessions and depressions in the market and times of boom and bust. This is because it is not a game of chance as you suggest. If you try to "get rich quick" in the stock market you will lose. If you just try to accumulate wealth in the stock market you are joining the ranks of hundreds of millions of people who have done just that.

And you are right about retirement planning. I have 10 years before I can retire at the age of 42 with 45% of my pay. The military retirement is currently one of the best retirement systems. Yet, I put 0% of my trust in government. Despite my military pension which could be taken away by the next President who decides it's more important to cut the military budget instead of cutting domestic spending increases. So I have about 17% of my pay reserved for retirement. Of that about 4% is invested in bonds. I can show you how in Sept '08 I lost almost 1/2 of my retirement, yet because I have faith in the market 6 months later I regained all my losses with interest and ended up with more money than had the market not dropped so drastically. I put my trust in me alone and base my decisions upon facts and tried and true knowledge. It is why currently the amount I invest each month into my retirement earns more in interest than my contributions. It is accumulating wealth. My retirement plan has planned for 0% of my income to come from Social Security. I am a gambling man and in that case am betting against the system. They are fully welcome to prove me wrong but as of yet I have been proven right.


the Enron and Worldcom examples are cogent to this discussion. Many mutual funds were heavily invested in these two "very safe" stocks, both of which showed statistics which made them seem to be great long-term investments. People who do not follow the stock market closely, but want to get a greater return on their money than they can currently obtain from a bank, usually turn to mutual funds for their stock market exposure. There were mutual funds and other large, knowledgable investment managers who bought MORE Enron and Worldcom stocks as their prices dropped initially, because of their long-term "stability". When giant corporations, and the giant auditing firms which are supposed to keep them honest, lie about their revenues, expenditures, and earnings, it makes the stock market organized, legalized gambling.

One of the constant themes on shows which analyze the stock market today is that the volume is so much lower than it was before recent stock market declines. The small investor is still scared. I'm glad that your investments have bounced back. That is not the same experience others have had in recent years. That's why I say, it's OK to invest a portion of your money -- over and above that being taken for Social Security -- in stocks, but the Social Security pension fund itself should be in more prudent investment securities. We need a solid floor of Social Security upon which to build our retirement nest eggs!

And BTW, Social Security is going to be around and solvent for a long, long, time. Why? Because the fastest growing segment of our population is that containing senior citizens. And every population cohort for the last 50 years votes at a greater rate as they age than that same group voted when they were young. Politicians will not bankrupt Social Security, because senior citizens will vote them out of office long before they could. Social Security is secure for at least another generation right now, but the concerns people have are misused by those who think that they can somehow profit by unnecessarily scaring people, or trying to pit younger people against seniors.

One thing holding back growth among giant, international corporations, is that while China's economy is growing more rapidly than any other large economy currently, these corporations are not seeing the growth in sales to China they thought would naturally occur. Why not? Because the Chinese are hedging their bets. They are saving over 20% of what they earn. The savings rate in the United States is about 4%. Savings is good for an economic system up to a point, but nothing stimulates an economy like increased consumer spending. That's why lower taxes for the middle class and working poor boost an economy more than tax cuts for the wealthy. The middle class and working poor need to buy goods and services with almost all of the tax savings. Who knows what multi-millionaires are going to do with another half million?? The economic term for this is marginal utility.

The holes in your argument Dale are one that mutual funds are already diversified. So even if they had a substantial portion invested in Enron or Worldcom it shouldn't be anything more than 5% of the total portfolio. If it was more than 5% then chances are it's a poorly managed mutual fund and anyone investing in it hasn't reviewed the prospectus 5/10 year outlook or mission statement. Again trust no one but ones self.

You are wrong on volume and I think it's the terms you are confusing. Volume is high but investors are currently low. It works out well for me because when the other investors come back I will have spent this time buying up a larger share. And if I could invest half of my Social security and I invest it poorly, I wouldn't be completely out because only half got invested and the rest would be gov't backed, however if I do a good job investing I now have increased solvency and my own return in SS.

"Social Security is secure for at least another generation right now, but the concerns people have are misused by those who think that they can somehow profit by unnecessarily scaring people, or trying to pit younger people against seniors." Exactly, I'm about 2 generations back and there is no guarantee for me. And SS IS GOING BANKRUPT.

I can prove it's going bankrupt because of one metric. Why do they keep raising the age of which to pull benefits? You can only raise the age so much. So there is no guarantee it will be around for a long long time in its current state. In fact I'd be surprised if it is in it's current state by 2022.

China china china china. If you were so well versed in geoeconomics you'd be less concerned about China and more concerned about India who is begining to overtake China because as a capitalist society they are more business friendly. But additionally they, like China, have a billion people. However unlike China, they will sustain their population. China leads the world in infanticide, of these a large percentage are female children. This will shift the gender balance in the country which will cause them SIGNIFICANT problems for the next two generations. India will not have those problems and will stabilize.

The reason you hear so much about China is because of it's one party system it's an easier scare tactic and it's harder to fearmonger with India.


You completely ignore the fact that your generation, too, will vote in higher percentages as your cohort ages. There are changes that can be made in Social Security to make it as solvent for the long term, as it now is in the short and medium term. If the 98% insist that the 2% pay a little more, by our raising the salary ceiling upon which Social Security contributions are made into the fund, there will be more than enough money in Social Security without raising the age at which one receives 100% of benefits. On the other hand, if we recognize that even in America, as backward as we are in the field of accessibility of health care which holds down our life expectancy, that life expectancy is far greater than it was in the 1930s. Some increase in the retirement age is justified, as long as we expand medical coverage so that people do not have to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills!

You have your head-in-the-sand about China. Look at the numbers. Don't let your ideology cloud the facts out of your analysis. FYI...China's GDP is more than 2.5 TIMES that of India. China's per capita GDP is also more than 2.5 TIMES that of India. In addition, China's literacy rate is 92%. India's literacy rate is 61%. That means that China is better prepared to continue taking our better paying jobs which require job holders to be better educated.

And fearing China is realistic, and far from fear-mongering. China is a Communist dictatorship. The Chinese leadership hates freedom. They only have allowed economic freedom because it brings financial rewards. When it comes to political freedom, there is none in China.

As far as population growth is concerned, the "one child" policy is somewhat effective in China's large cities. In the smaller cities, it is less so. In the rural ares, it is mostly ignored. The "one child" policy has been in effect for more than a generation now. If the "one child" policy were very effective, China would have a negative growth rate. The latest estimate is that China is still growing at almost 1/2 of 1% per year. This may sound small, but on a population base of more than 1.3 billion, China adds over 6 million people each year! That's adding the equivalent of Ohio's total population in less than two years! If current trends continue, India will pass China in population, but an increasing population has negative effects as well as positive effects. More people = more problems, too!

You ignore that fact that Enron and Worldcom were considered to be safe, prudent, conservative companies in which one should invest. I'm a little sorry I mentioned those two, because the lies went far beyond those two companies. If we threw in the financial institutions, which also were considered to be safe, secure, conservative investments, and too many others to mention, we get why so many small investors are scared out. As far as volume is concerned, your argument is with the financial news networks. Overall, they are quite bullish on the stock market right now, but they have some concern because the recent run-up of prices has been on volume that is not so high as it was a short time ago. Argue with them!

I hope that your personal investments continue to do well. Continue doing your research, but remember these institutions do lie. There is a current commercial for an investment firm which warns, and I'm paraphrasing here, "...just because a fund has done well in the past, does not mean it will do well in the future". And that commercial doesn't even take lying into account! Good luck! Organized legalized, gambling, and you may quote me on that.

Mikey...As you do, I believe in long term stock investments. Day trading and other short term stretegies are almost like going to a casino. But we must admit that such investments are part of the overall scene.

Diversification helps to level off the highs and lows of the stock market. Most small investors diversify by investing in mutual funds which use professional money managers to diversify their portfolios, so that the individual investor does not have to make those decisions.

This still does not ensure success in the investment business, however. As of today, of the largest 15 mutual funds, those with the greatest total assets, over a five year period, three of them, or 20%, have an annual return of NEGATIVE 2%, despite the fact that all three are returning double-digit percentage gains in 2012. Of the others, only two, or 13.3%, have returned more than 2% per year to investors over the last five years.

As I stated, I do invest in stocks, but stocks are a gamble. Government bonds are so much more secure. Let's keep the Social Security trust fund invested in these very stable securities, and do as you do, investing over and above your contribution to Social Security in more risky arenas.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.