Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

This Alone Should Be Enough to Disqualify Obama for Re-Election

Posted by   + Show Post

A quick glance at the Federal Debt Clock shows the following...

A number growing really fast but as of 6 AM Pacific Time on Tuesday it's at $15,588,614,000,000 and getting bigger really fast.

Our current administration has added a third of that total in three years. That number was $8.67 trillion in January of 2007 when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, Harry Reid took over the Senate, and Barack Obama became a Senator. http://www.redstate.com/california_y...peaker-pelosi/

Of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, Democrats have controlled two of those three if not all three every year since 2007, and in those five years we have seen the total debt for a nation that is more than 230 years old almost double.

And what's scary, is that our current president doesn't even talk about it. The debt will reach 16 trillion before election day and would reach more than 20 trillion before the end of a second Obama term...And Obama and his party won't even pass a budget. That level of fiscal incompetence all by itself is reason enough to send the Democrats packing.

by on Mar. 27, 2012 at 9:27 AM
Replies (61-70):
GaleJ
by Member on Mar. 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM
3 moms liked this

Do you and your fellow faux-conservatives ever tire of trying to convince people with fear that your side is right? President Obama did not cause the huge increase you are citing. Some of it was caused by the wars that President Bush carried on "off the book" as it were, some was caused by allowing revenue to fall by time and again cutting taxes and allowing loopholes the size of jumbo jets, some of it was caused by the financial crash, the "Great Recession," that was, in turned, caused by the ongoing deregulation that has gone on since President Reagan. It is simplistic and disingenuous to try and say it was caused by President Obama let alone trying to say it disqualifies him to run for re-election.

Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Mar. 30, 2012 at 6:22 AM
3 moms liked this


Quoting rachelrothchild:

Infuriating, isn't it?  If we don't talk about the national debt, it will go away.  Maybe money will start growing on trees or falling from the sky?  It's fine because we can just pass the buck to our children, right?  


Agreed, and just to add to that, the only way to survive increasing public debt is to constantly expand the economy.  In the short term, economic bubbles like the dot.com bubble, the housing bubble, even a war or two can expand the economy...but when those bubbles burst, we are left with a crash and recession and sometimes ruined retirement accounts, lost jobs, lost capital.  The growing national debt is like a drug addict that cannot live with the ebbs and flows that an economy naturally goes through.  At some point the debt "bomb" will go off, or in other words, there won't be enough influx in capital to sustain it and very possibly our money will be nearly worthless.


Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Mar. 30, 2012 at 6:29 AM

Why? Taxes can do much more than merely redistribute wealth.  Police? Highways? Libraries? Schools?

Quoting Citygirlk:

so then we shouldnt pay taxes.

Quoting rachelrothchild:

Forcibly taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who need it is stealing.

Quoting Citygirlk:

oh i'm sorry you took it the wrong way what i meant is using tax money to help those in need, not stealing.

Quoting Mamawto4:

Because it's stealing.  The people who earned the money, OWN the money.  Those that didn't earn that money, don't own that money.

This really is no different than saying, what's wrong with taking the stove out of the old woman's home, who can no longer cook for herself and relies on Meals on Wheels, and giving it to someone else that can cook.  Or what's wrong with taking the home that the old woman lived in, but now can't because she is convalescing, and giving it to someone else that lost their home.

Don't we all own things that we don't NEED?  Wouldn't you be upset if someone came along, decided what you needed or not, and forcibly took the things they decided you didn't need.  Wouldn't that be stealing?

Quoting Citygirlk:

how does it help him again? and what so bad about redistributing money to the poor people who need it instead of the rich who don't?  once again you don't make sense this man cares for the middle class and the poor that's what his campaign ran on in 2008 and will run on now, as i remember he wants to tax the super rich and give tax breaks to the middle class. what i don't understand is why people have a problem with this it was done in this country before why not go back to that way.

Quoting asfriend:

He is not trying to help the financial mess. The worse that  the financial mess gets the better for him. Every policy that he promotes is bad for the middle class. He is in bed with Wall Street, and he redistributes money to the poor. The more people that he can knock out of the middle class,  and make tham dependent on Government, the better for him.

Quoting Citygirlk:

sorry i never heard him say that he wants to be dictator or that he wants a utopia. i think you need to check your news source. and hoping that the president doesn't succeed in fixing the finical problem is exactly why this mess won't be fixed any faster than it is.

Quoting asfriend:

Since his view of utopia is him being an unopposed dictator of a third world country, I hope he never is able to succeed.

Quoting Citygirlk:

Its not that hes a poor leader he just need to grow some balls and step up to these peope and say hey you guys need to stop looking iut for your own interest and start thinking about the country and its people.

 










Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Mar. 30, 2012 at 6:32 AM
3 moms liked this


Quoting GaleJ:

Do you and your fellow faux-conservatives ever tire of trying to convince people with fear that your side is right? President Obama did not cause the huge increase you are citing. Some of it was caused by the wars that President Bush carried on "off the book" as it were, some was caused by allowing revenue to fall by time and again cutting taxes and allowing loopholes the size of jumbo jets, some of it was caused by the financial crash, the "Great Recession," that was, in turned, caused by the ongoing deregulation that has gone on since President Reagan. It is simplistic and disingenuous to try and say it was caused by President Obama let alone trying to say it disqualifies him to run for re-election.

This is why:

"And what's scary, is that our current president doesn't even talk about it. The debt will reach 16 trillion before election day and would reach more than 20 trillion before the end of a second Obama term...And Obama and his party won't even pass a budget. That level of fiscal incompetence all by itself is reason enough to send the Democrats packing."

asfriend
by on Mar. 30, 2012 at 8:01 AM
1 mom liked this

I believe she was being extreme, of course we need some taxes, although I never really understood tax payer funded libraries, when we had bookstores on every corner.
(Nice to see you too, I remembered your new name.)

Quoting Meadowchik:

Why? Taxes can do much more than merely redistribute wealth.  Police? Highways? Libraries? Schools?

Quoting Citygirlk:

so then we shouldnt pay taxes.

Quoting rachelrothchild:

Forcibly taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who need it is stealing.

 

 

 

rachelrothchild
by on Mar. 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I didn't say it was ALL his fault, but blaming someone who isn't president anymore for the debt this president has accumulated isn't fair.

Quoting motha2daDuchess:


Quoting rachelrothchild:

Thanks for adding that.  I forgot to add "blame it on Bush" to my reply.

Quoting motha2daDuchess:

was what the debt that Bush left at deducted?? no it never is, what President Obama has "added" gets added to that......


I am stating the factual truth that repubs love to point out where the debt is and that it has jumped, but what Bush left there is there, so it is not all President Obama's fault, sorry to teach you something today


CafeMom Tickers
rachelrothchild
by on Mar. 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM
2 moms liked this

I can't find the comment anymore, but to address the deficit by president:

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Bush added about 5 trillion to the national debt (2 wars are expensive) in 8 years.  Obama has added about 3 trillion in 3 years.  The last two presidents (Bush and Obama) have added the most amount of debt by far.  Of course, everything costs more now and our money is worth less too.  The biggest increase was in 1984 when Reagan was president.

CafeMom Tickers
motha2daDuchess
by on Mar. 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM


Quoting rachelrothchild:

I didn't say it was ALL his fault, but blaming someone who isn't president anymore for the debt this president has accumulated isn't fair.

Quoting motha2daDuchess:


Quoting rachelrothchild:

Thanks for adding that.  I forgot to add "blame it on Bush" to my reply.

Quoting motha2daDuchess:

was what the debt that Bush left at deducted?? no it never is, what President Obama has "added" gets added to that......


I am stating the factual truth that repubs love to point out where the debt is and that it has jumped, but what Bush left there is there, so it is not all President Obama's fault, sorry to teach you something today


Bush's debt was still there....President Obama has added to it....if he had started at 0 I'd say only he can be blamed, but he didn't and that is NEVER taken into thought....so think about it

lga1965
by on Mar. 30, 2012 at 4:24 PM

 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html

In February, President Obama issued a plan for the 2013 budget that included job-creation initiatives for infrastructure, job-training and innovation. To offset their cost, he called for raising $1.5 trillion over 10 years from the wealthiest taxpayers and from closing some corporate tax breaks, chiefly for oil and gas companies. For the first time he proposed a higher tax on dividend income of the wealthiest taxpayers, which would raise about $206 billion over 10 years.

In March, House Republicans unveiled a budget blueprint that would cut deeply into domestic spending, transform the tax code and transform Medicare and Medicaid. It would seek to balance the budget by 2040, although its 2013 deficit would be almost as deep as under Mr. Obama’s plan.

On March 29, the House Republican plan passed 228-to-191, with no Democratic votes and 10 Republican defections.

Both plans are primarily political documents. The Republicans are betting that worries over the deficit will trump affection for Medicare and other popular programs. Mr. Obama plans to use the budget debate to focus on Republicans’ plans to change Medicare and opposition to tax hikes for the rich.

lga1965
by on Mar. 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

 

Quoting GaleJ:

Do you and your fellow faux-conservatives ever tire of trying to convince people with fear that your side is right? President Obama did not cause the huge increase you are citing. Some of it was caused by the wars that President Bush carried on "off the book" as it were, some was caused by allowing revenue to fall by time and again cutting taxes and allowing loopholes the size of jumbo jets, some of it was caused by the financial crash, the "Great Recession," that was, in turned, caused by the ongoing deregulation that has gone on since President Reagan. It is simplistic and disingenuous to try and say it was caused by President Obama let alone trying to say it disqualifies him to run for re-election.

 GREATgood post!

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)