This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#1 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

The US debt was 10 trillion when Obama took office. And now it's 16 trillion. But Obama's got another 4 years left. In other words he'll easily be able to add AT LEAST another 4 trillion without breaking a sweat. That's just how good he is.

Long story short, the debt will have more than doubled under him. Historic president indeed. :D

Discuss.

DISCLAIMER: No Obama did not personally spend that 6 and a half trillion.

Avatar image for JML897
#2 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -
ok
Avatar image for Verge_6
#3 Posted by Verge_6 (20282 posts) -

Much anger I sense in you.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#4 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
 /thread.
Avatar image for johnd13
#5 Posted by johnd13 (9336 posts) -

I' m not in favor of or against Obama but maybe the rising debt stems from the worldwide economic crisis at least the greatest part of it. Who said thay Romney or anyone else would have done a better job?

Avatar image for CycleOfViolence
#6 Posted by CycleOfViolence (2813 posts) -

 /thread.nocoolnamejim

Ssh, no facts

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#7 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

chart

CycleOfViolence

Ssh, no facts

Smartass, what exactly is untrue about the OP? We can safely speculate that the debt will double under Obama. Deal with it.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#8 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30426 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] /thread.CycleOfViolence

Ssh, no facts

only tears

Avatar image for i_noseworthy
#9 Posted by i_noseworthy (1585 posts) -

[QUOTE="CycleOfViolence"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

chart

Storm_Marine

Ssh, no facts

Smartass, what exactly is untrue about the OP? We can safely speculate that the debt will double under Obama. Deal with it.

You can safely speculate anything you want. I can speculate that you'll gain a few brain cells before this is all over. But it doesn't necessarily make it true. And in this case, I doubt it very much. You came up with a point based entirely on conjecture, and then solidified your point with... more conjecture. The trouble in the US began with G W Bush. All Obama has been doing is trying to dig himself out of a grave that was unceremoniously dug for him. Sure, maybe that hasn't exactly been going well. But you want to place blame on Obama directly for the trouble in the US? Maybe you should, at the VERY least, look at some kind of facts to substantiate your argument. 'Cause you're kinda soundin' stupid.
Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#10 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

 /thread.nocoolnamejim

This graphics should have have been front and center on every piece of Obama advertizing during the election.

Avatar image for KiIIyou
#11 Posted by KiIIyou (27180 posts) -

Much anger I sense in you.

Verge_6
I saw one of those guys at Target the other day but it had pink skin and large boobs.
Avatar image for ZX81plus3
#12 Posted by ZX81plus3 (181 posts) -
If you guys had voted for Romney's austerity measures you would be undergoing what the UK is currently undergoing which is complete economic and business shutdown.
Avatar image for LordQuorthon
#13 Posted by LordQuorthon (5726 posts) -

Debt isn't really something you want to measure in raw numbers. Instead, you have to compare it to the size of the economy. A man with 5 million dollars in the bank who also happens to owe 200 thousand dollars is in less debt than a man with 500 dollars in the bank who owes 700 dollars.

I'm not saying this to defend Obama and I'm pretty sure that the economy hasn't grown nearly enough since 2008 to justify such growth in the country's debt, but throwing debt figures all williy nilly without providing other figures that consitute some kind of context is a fallacious argument.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#14 Posted by Serraph105 (32123 posts) -

[QUOTE="CycleOfViolence"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] /thread.Aljosa23

Ssh, no facts

only tears

no facts for the wicked, truth don't grow on trees.

Avatar image for CycleOfViolence
#15 Posted by CycleOfViolence (2813 posts) -

Smartass, what exactly is untrue about the OP? We can safely speculate that the debt will double under Obama. Deal with it.

Storm_Marine

That the entirety of the growth in the national debt is directly attributed to his policies and actions. With that said he also doesn't get a free pass as some of his policies in his first 4 years added to the debt.

Avatar image for dave123321
#16 Posted by dave123321 (35354 posts) -
Oh storm
Avatar image for MrPraline
#17 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
The US debt was 10 trillion when Obama took office. And now it's 16 trillion. Storm_Marine
Hey, at least he actually changed something.
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#18 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

Tears and excuses as expected. But my assessment in the OP is valid. Deal with it.

Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#19 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

Tears and excuses as expected. But my assessment in the OP is valid. Deal with it.

Storm_Marine

If the biggest culprit of an increasing deficit is the Bush tax cuts, and Obama is trying to end them, how is it his fault?

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#20 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Tears and excuses as expected. But my assessment in the OP is valid. Deal with it.

jimkabrhel

If the biggest culprit of an increasing deficit is the Bush tax cuts, and Obama is trying to end them, how is it his fault?

I'm not blaming anyone or drawing conclusions. I'm just putting forward the numbers. Blame George Washington if you want, I don't care.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#21 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

Tears and excuses as expected. But my assessment in the OP is valid. Deal with it.

Storm_Marine
Correct that the deficit will increase enormously while Obama is in office, incorrect in Obama being the cause of it as my graphic showed above. Basically, you're making a "Correlation implying causation" argument. 1. The deficit grows 2. Obama is in office 3. Obama is responsible for the deficit growing Which is either intentionally misleading or just lazy thinking. The biggest causes of the deficit are the Bush Era tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep recession that began under George W. Bush. Now, what would be interesting is hearing what you think should be done to reduce the deficit. Do you favor letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which economists say would cause a double dip recession? Do you favor massive cutbacks to entitlements and defense spending? Some combination of the two? President Obama has stated that he is willing to do a balanced approach of cutting entitlements, the military budget, and increasing taxes to tackle the deficit. He has offered such an approach to House Republicans before. They rejected it. So if you have complaints about the deficit, then to be serious about it requires two things: 1. Acknowledgement of the main drivers (which Republicans don't want to talk about because the deficit was largely Bush caused) 2. Willingness to tackle it through some combination of tax increases, entitlement and defense cuts. None of which tend to be politically popular.
Avatar image for Zeviander
#22 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Romney would have made no difference. Both Democrats and Republicans like to spend money. The former on social programs, and the latter on the military.
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#23 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Tears and excuses as expected. But my assessment in the OP is valid. Deal with it.

nocoolnamejim

Correct that the deficit will increase enormously while Obama is in office, incorrect in Obama being the cause of it as my graphic showed above. Basically, you're making a "Correlation implying causation" argument. 1. The deficit grows 2. Obama is in office 3. Obama is responsible for the deficit growing Which is either intentionally misleading or just lazy thinking. The biggest causes of the deficit are the Bush Era tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep recession that began under George W. Bush. Now, what would be interesting is hearing what you think should be done to reduce the deficit. Do you favor letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which economists say would cause a double dip recession? Do you favor massive cutbacks to entitlements and defense spending? Some combination of the two? President Obama has stated that he is willing to do a balanced approach of cutting entitlements, the military budget, and increasing taxes to tackle the deficit. He has offered such an approach to House Republicans before. They rejected it. So if you have complaints about the deficit, then to be serious about it requires two things: 1. Acknowledgement of the main drivers (which Republicans don't want to talk about because the deficit was largely Bush caused) 2. Willingness to tackle it through some combination of tax increases, entitlement and defense cuts. None of which tend to be politically popular.

I think you're misinterpreting the OP. I'm suprised you're not mad about my sig as well.

Avatar image for ZX81plus3
#24 Posted by ZX81plus3 (181 posts) -
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Romney would have made no difference. Both Democrats and Republicans like to spend money. The former on social programs, and the latter on the military.

Romney would have made it much much worse. Like David Cameron, he would have made massive cuts which would have ground the economy down to a halt. How is a country with no economy supposed to pay off it's debt?
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#25 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]Romney would have made no difference. Both Democrats and Republicans like to spend money. The former on social programs, and the latter on the military.ZX81plus3
Romney would have made it much much worse. Like David Cameron, he would have made massive cuts which would have ground the economy down to a halt. How is a country with no economy supposed to pay off it's debt?

Did David Cameron eat Britain's economy or something?

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#26 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

Tears and excuses as expected. But my assessment in the OP is valid. Deal with it.

Storm_Marine

Correct that the deficit will increase enormously while Obama is in office, incorrect in Obama being the cause of it as my graphic showed above. Basically, you're making a "Correlation implying causation" argument. 1. The deficit grows 2. Obama is in office 3. Obama is responsible for the deficit growing Which is either intentionally misleading or just lazy thinking. The biggest causes of the deficit are the Bush Era tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep recession that began under George W. Bush. Now, what would be interesting is hearing what you think should be done to reduce the deficit. Do you favor letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which economists say would cause a double dip recession? Do you favor massive cutbacks to entitlements and defense spending? Some combination of the two? President Obama has stated that he is willing to do a balanced approach of cutting entitlements, the military budget, and increasing taxes to tackle the deficit. He has offered such an approach to House Republicans before. They rejected it. So if you have complaints about the deficit, then to be serious about it requires two things: 1. Acknowledgement of the main drivers (which Republicans don't want to talk about because the deficit was largely Bush caused) 2. Willingness to tackle it through some combination of tax increases, entitlement and defense cuts. None of which tend to be politically popular.

I think you're misinterpreting the OP. I'm suprised you're not mad about my sig as well.

No I'm not misinterpreting you and I'm not mad. [quote="You"] The US debt was 10 trillion when Obama took office. And now it's 16 trillion. But Obama's got another 4 years left. In other words he'll easily be able to add AT LEAST another 4 trillion without breaking a sweat. That's just how good he is. Long story short, the debt will have more than doubled under him. Historic president indeed. Discuss.

There's no misinterpretation. You're claiming that Obama is directly responsible for all of the deficit increase. There's no ambiguity to your post. And if anyone is mad, I'd say it is you. Hell, ask even your fellow conservatives. Your posting style since the election has gotten even more angry, hostile and confrontational than it was before. I mean, we all tend to get a little grumpy in debate threads once in a while. Part and parcel of being forced to have other viewpoints shoved in your face. But in all seriousness, aside from Vuurk you do seem the angriest conservative on the forum these days. Others like Whip and DMC have managed to stay a bit more laid back.
Avatar image for ZX81plus3
#27 Posted by ZX81plus3 (181 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZX81plus3"][QUOTE="Zeviander"]Romney would have made no difference. Both Democrats and Republicans like to spend money. The former on social programs, and the latter on the military.Storm_Marine

Romney would have made it much much worse. Like David Cameron, he would have made massive cuts which would have ground the economy down to a halt. How is a country with no economy supposed to pay off it's debt?

Did David Cameron eat Britain's economy?

Good luck finding a job in the UK. Our biggest businesses are shutting down or closing stores. People are losing jobs left right and center. Romney would have done exactly the same. So you should thank your lucky stars that Obama is in office, and Americans still have jobs unlike us Brits. True story.
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#28 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Correct that the deficit will increase enormously while Obama is in office, incorrect in Obama being the cause of it as my graphic showed above. Basically, you're making a "Correlation implying causation" argument. 1. The deficit grows 2. Obama is in office 3. Obama is responsible for the deficit growing Which is either intentionally misleading or just lazy thinking. The biggest causes of the deficit are the Bush Era tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deep recession that began under George W. Bush. Now, what would be interesting is hearing what you think should be done to reduce the deficit. Do you favor letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire, which economists say would cause a double dip recession? Do you favor massive cutbacks to entitlements and defense spending? Some combination of the two? President Obama has stated that he is willing to do a balanced approach of cutting entitlements, the military budget, and increasing taxes to tackle the deficit. He has offered such an approach to House Republicans before. They rejected it. So if you have complaints about the deficit, then to be serious about it requires two things: 1. Acknowledgement of the main drivers (which Republicans don't want to talk about because the deficit was largely Bush caused) 2. Willingness to tackle it through some combination of tax increases, entitlement and defense cuts. None of which tend to be politically popular.nocoolnamejim

I think you're misinterpreting the OP. I'm suprised you're not mad about my sig as well.

No I'm not misinterpreting you and I'm not mad.
The US debt was 10 trillion when Obama took office. And now it's 16 trillion. But Obama's got another 4 years left. In other words he'll easily be able to add AT LEAST another 4 trillion without breaking a sweat. That's just how good he is. Long story short, the debt will have more than doubled under him. Historic president indeed. Discuss. You
There's no misinterpretation. You're claiming that Obama is directly responsible for all of the deficit increase. There's no ambiguity to your post. And if anyone is mad, I'd say it is you. Hell, ask even your fellow conservatives. Your posting style since the election has gotten even more angry, hostile and confrontational than it was before. I mean, we all tend to get a little grumpy in debate threads once in a while. Part and parcel of being forced to have other viewpoints shoved in your face. But in all seriousness, aside from Vuurk you do seem the angriest conservative on the forum these days. Others like Whip and DMC have managed to stay a bit more laid back.

:(

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#29 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

disclaimer added to OP for people that need extreme clarification.

Avatar image for Allicrombie
#30 Posted by Allicrombie (26213 posts) -
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="ZX81plus3"] Romney would have made it much much worse. Like David Cameron, he would have made massive cuts which would have ground the economy down to a halt. How is a country with no economy supposed to pay off it's debt?ZX81plus3

Did David Cameron eat Britain's economy?

Good luck finding a job in the UK. Our biggest businesses are shutting down or closing stores. People are losing jobs left right and center. Romney would have done exactly the same. So you should thank your lucky stars that Obama is in office, and Americans still have jobs unlike us Brits. True story.

You're really putting a damper on my dream to move to London and become a street mime.
Avatar image for mingmao3046
#31 Posted by mingmao3046 (2683 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] /thread.

I don't understand this. Yes Bush started these wars and whatnot but he still didn't throw in 6 trillion to the debt, even though those wars went on longer under Bush than they have under Obama
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#32 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

I'd put that "Angriest conservative" accolade in my sig if I could think of more than 4 or 5 conservatives here.

Avatar image for WiiCubeM1
#33 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4735 posts) -

Hate to break it to you, but the deficit was going to increase no matter who took office in 2008.

Avatar image for i_noseworthy
#35 Posted by i_noseworthy (1585 posts) -

disclaimer added to OP for people that need extreme clarification.

Storm_Marine
LOL. Just read your "disclaimer"... Talk about pedantic argumentation. This has just gotten sad. Look, whether you meant to or not (which you did, but whatever), you directly state in your OP that Obama is to blame for the increased deficit. And no matter how you look at it, that is completely and utterly wrong. If your point was to say "the deficit increased under Obama's rule", then you're absolutely right! Here's a gold star! But that wasn't your point, and that's entirely clear. Your argument states, quite explicitly, that Obama is THE reason for the deficit growth. On top of that, you've done nothing (ABSOLUTELY nothing) to further validate your point. You just keep repeating it over and over again. That doesn't make it right. I can say cheese tastes like peanut butter a million times over, but cheese still tastes like frakkin' cheese. YOU are what scares me about politics. Not the politicians, they're meaningless at the end of the day. It's the droves of sheep that let a political agenda run their way of thinking, that's what terrifies me. Pull your head out, give it a shake, and actually look at the context of your argument. Not the argument itself, but why you feel that way. If you can't see the logical fallacies in your thinking, no one on this board can help you. But then again, I'm starting to think you wouldn't want help anyway...
Avatar image for dave123321
#36 Posted by dave123321 (35354 posts) -

disclaimer added to OP for people that need extreme clarification.

Storm_Marine
You seem so angry these days
Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#37 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

disclaimer added to OP for people that need extreme clarification.

dave123321

You seem so angry these days

I go around all day like the guy in my avatar.

Avatar image for hoola
#38 Posted by hoola (6422 posts) -

 /thread.nocoolnamejim

so what this graph is telling me is we need less government intervention in the markets, less government involvement over seas, to reduce government spending in other areas so we don't have to raise taxes by eliminating the Bush tax cuts, and to spend less money on welfare and other direct-to-individual expenditures. Its amazing what you can get from a little graph like this.

It simply proves that Bush and Obama were/are big spenders to go along with their congress' and don't intend on eliminating the defecit and debt any time soon. Is small and fiscally responsible government the reason we are $16 trillion in debt with unfunded liabilities of over $121 trillion? Yeah, I'm sure it is:P

Avatar image for dave123321
#39 Posted by dave123321 (35354 posts) -

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

disclaimer added to OP for people that need extreme clarification.

Storm_Marine

You seem so angry these days

I go around all day like the guy in my avatar.

It shows
Avatar image for MrPraline
#40 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"] You seem so angry these daysdave123321

I go around all day like the guy in my avatar.

It shows

rofl
Avatar image for shadowchronicle
#41 Posted by Shadowchronicle (26969 posts) -
Yeah people can't be independent by themselves so they need a babysitter like Obama. [spoiler] so many angry people these days. [/spoiler] EDIT: As usual I'm spelling this out of pure anger. Anger. All these people here who are so offended. Just anger. Protecting what they think thats only best for themselves.
Avatar image for CKYguy25
#42 Posted by CKYguy25 (2087 posts) -

Much anger I sense in you.

Verge_6

that is hilarious

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#43 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

16 trillion isn't even that much since the USA makes more money then the entire continent of Europe combined, and makes more than China at it's best while they're in a recession.

I think the USA economy makes about 60 trillion annually last time I checked.

Avatar image for tagyhag
#44 Posted by tagyhag (15874 posts) -
Do people still think debt matters? I wanna know what China will do to take the money that we owe them.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
#45 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Do people still think debt matters? I wanna know what China will do to take the money that we owe them.tagyhag
Nothing. America and China both have each other by the balls. America doesn't have to pay, but they won't continue to get funded, but then America doesn't need to use China as it's top importer.
Avatar image for Barbariser
#46 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

16 trillion isn't even that much since the USA makes more money then the entire continent of Europe combined, and makes more than China at it's best while they're in a recession.

I think the USA economy makes about 60 trillion annually last time I checked.

Fightingfan

WTF no, the U.S. produces something like 15 trillion dollars a year, significantly smaller than Europe's 18 trillion or East Asia's 18.5 trillion and slightly smaller than the E.U.'s 15.5 trillion. It also has a lot more public debt than the E.U. or China in both absolute terms and compared to its G.D.P.. If the U.S. made up 75% of the world economy and had a per capita G.D.P. of $200, 000 it would be way richer than it is now.

But you are partially correct, having a debt of 16 trillion is hardly a serious economic threat to America at this time, barring the fact that America has self-imposed economic disaster triggers like the Debt Ceiling.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#47 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

16 trillion isn't even that much since the USA makes more money then the entire continent of Europe combined, and makes more than China at it's best while they're in a recession.

I think the USA economy makes about 60 trillion annually last time I checked.

Barbariser

WTF no, the U.S. produces something like 15 trillion dollars a year, significantly smaller than Europe's 18 trillion or East Asia's 18.5 trillion and slightly smaller than the E.U.'s 15.5 trillion. It also has a lot more public debt than the E.U. or China in both absolute terms and compared to its G.D.P.. If the U.S. made up 75% of the world economy and had a per capita G.D.P. of $200, 000 it would be way richer than it is now.

But you are partially correct, having a debt of 16 trillion is hardly a serious economic threat to America at this time, barring the fact that America has self-imposed economic disaster triggers like the Debt Ceiling.

Wiki says their GDP is about 15trill a quarter.

"National Economic Trends ('Nominal GDP')" (PDF). Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. November 29, 2012. p. 24. Retrieved November 30, 2012.

GNP as well is about 15.3 which is laughable since we're comparing one country to an entire continent, and then comparing a country in a recession compared to another country having the best economical stimulas in its history(China).

Avatar image for Barbariser
#49 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

16 trillion isn't even that much since the USA makes more money then the entire continent of Europe combined, and makes more than China at it's best while they're in a recession.

I think the USA economy makes about 60 trillion annually last time I checked.

Fightingfan

WTF no, the U.S. produces something like 15 trillion dollars a year, significantly smaller than Europe's 18 trillion or East Asia's 18.5 trillion and slightly smaller than the E.U.'s 15.5 trillion. It also has a lot more public debt than the E.U. or China in both absolute terms and compared to its G.D.P.. If the U.S. made up 75% of the world economy and had a per capita G.D.P. of $200, 000 it would be way richer than it is now.

But you are partially correct, having a debt of 16 trillion is hardly a serious economic threat to America at this time, barring the fact that America has self-imposed economic disaster triggers like the Debt Ceiling.

Wiki says their GDP is about 15trill a quarter.

"National Economic Trends ('Nominal GDP')" (PDF). Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. November 29, 2012. p. 24. Retrieved November 30, 2012.

GNP as well is about 15.3 which is laughable since we're comparing one country to an entire continent, and then comparing a country in a recession compared to another country having the best economical stimulas in its history(China).

I did a quick word search through both the wiki page of the U.S. and the economy of the U.S., which returned no results suggesting that America produces $15 trillion per quarter. Probably because that claim would be total BS as G.D.P. is always listed annually and wikipedia outright shows on a table that the U.S. had a G.D.P. of 15 trillion in 2011. Your source doesn't exist on either page, and I have no idea what you're using it to say. The global economy is 80 trillion dollars, do you seriously think that a country with 4.5% of the world's population receives 75% of its income?

China has a smaller economy (roughly three quarters of the U.S.) than America does due to the fact that it's had to crawl out of a century of socio-political disorder and foreign meddling and has a massive technology disadvantage. By most estimations, they'll have a larger G.D.P. than the U.S. within the decade, although their living standards will remain significantly lower. It doesn't really matter that it's smaller as it still has a much lower debt to G.D.P. than America does, which was the number that you were originally harping on about.