Obama isn't doing good at all. He renewed the Bush tax cuts for the top earners and that was a huge mistake, as that chart shows.

And no, the topic isn't stupid, right wing hack, it shows that the big complaints coming from Republicans about the debt is because of their policies and they are blaming Democrats. You know how the right wing likes to blame Democratic controlled houses for these things? Well, who is in charge of the House now and has been since Obama has been in office? Funny how now it's Obama's fault. The blame shifts to the closest Democrat.

I know Obama isn't perfect, I would just expect a little consistency once in a while. Too much to ask?

FuzzNJ wrote:

Obama isn't doing good at all. He renewed the Bush tax cuts for the top earners and that was a huge mistake, as that chart shows.

FuzzNJ wrote:

“America has extraordinary resources and we can use those resources, both intellectual and financial, to get us to a place where we are again a fiscally sound nation, a fiscally balanced nation, and future generations are not at risk.”

wheelrite wrote:

Yes, the topic is stupid, pissant wannabe. It tries to duck the issue of who has racked up what amount of national debt so you can make some weak-ass argument that everything would be wonderful if the Bush tax cuts didn't exist. What that doesn't address is what would have happened to the economy over the last ten years.

The first two years of the Obama administration, the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate. They could have easily killed the Bush tax cuts and given you the miraculous victory you so desire. For some reason they didn't have the guts to do it but had no problem breaking out the credit card.

What now remains to be seen in what will the next year's Federal budget look like now that there is a Republican controlled House and the nation has maxed out our debt ceiling.

HockeyDad wrote:

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Truth hurts.

Now pile on more war, another ponzi scheme and you have OWEBAMA...The Kenyan King alone at the top of the pile with more debt then has ever been realized since the start of this nation...COMBINED!

Lefty forgets that you have to pass the bill (one written by the lobbyists!) to see what's inside of it. Forget reading and stuff...that's hard. No, just kick the can further down the road.

Sad game that we can no longer play. The band is going to want to be paid for the dances. The Devil is overdue.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Even taking your numbers at face value bush's number was for 8 years obama is for 1 and a half...

ZRX1200 wrote:

Bush ran up 4.9 trillion.

Obama has run up 2.4.

So that is wrong.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds092009.pdf 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opdm042011.pdf 

FuzzNJ wrote:

This is like arguing over the bar tab on the Titanic...

DadZilla3 wrote:

But it is a lie that Republican administrations are better at fiscal responsibility.

FuzzNJ wrote:

I agree with you there Fuzz 100%. Neither party seems to know how to balance a check book. Washington, and most of the state governments as well, need to start acting responsibly or we're gonna turn into Zimbabwe before too long.

DadZilla3 wrote:

And yet we have posts like 25 where the lies keep spreading. Yeah, it's a problem. But it is a lie that Republican administrations are better at fiscal responsibility.

FuzzNJ wrote: