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 (91-100):
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting paknari:

How about at least placing the blame on congress for not passing a budget. After all, it goes to the president after congress approved it.

 I did in the OP,

"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."

Remember that the Dems controlled both houses of Congress from 2007 until 2011.  Then they kept the Senate, while the Republicans finally had a majority in the House of Representatives.

And during his term, Obama and his White House team has been badly organised, Obama even losing the confidence of Dem congressmen. 

I invite you to read this, all of it: 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635

imamomzilla
by on Sep. 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

 Last time I peeked it was above 16 TRILLION. That's unsustainable. We're doomed.

 

paknari
by Silver Member on Sep. 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM
But it is not one sided. The reason a budget can't be passed is becaus eboth parties refuse to work together. They are both to blame. Honestly if we just held congress to the same standards as the private sector a budget would've been passed. If you didnt do your work would you still have a job?


Quoting Meadowchik:

 


Quoting paknari:

How about at least placing the blame on congress for not passing a budget. After all, it goes to the president after congress approved it.

 I did in the OP,


"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."


Remember that the Dems controlled both houses of Congress from 2007 until 2011.  Then they kept the Senate, while the Republicans finally had a majority in the House of Representatives.


And during his term, Obama and his White House team has been badly organised, Obama even losing the confidence of Dem congressmen. 


I invite you to read this, all of it: 


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Sep. 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

 

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Last time I peeked it was above 16 TRILLION. That's unsustainable. We're doomed.

Four straight years of trillion dollar deficits, with more to come.  Yes, Congress has to pass budgets as well, but it appears that the POTUS also significantly failed in his leadership role, in his part.  How can we expect his plan or ANY good budget plan to be passed if Obama is re-elected?

 

7SportsMom7
by Bronze Member on Sep. 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Exactlty ... the addition of social security gave a false impression of a surplus.

Quoting asfriend:

The "Clinton Surplus" that you vagely mentioned, was not real, it only existed on paper. It was an accounting trick, using long term debt, versus short term debt.  Anything else?

Quoting nanaofsix531:

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 ♥ facts!

Quoting HouseKatof2:

This would be funny if it wasn't for the sad fact that so many people believe it. 

Let's not forget that one of the first things Obama did when he stepped into the budget was to fold the cost of two wars into the national debt... You know, the wars Bush II was so insistent on us needing to fight... The wars Bush II decided to ignore fiscally so that the American people wouldn't realize what they were doing to the national debt.

Let's also not forget that, when a president takes office, he has to follow through on the last President's budget from January until October 1st. Until he can take control of the budget on October 1st, it is really pretty much a run away train he is trying to navigate. 

When Bush I took control of the budget on October 1, 1989, the national debt was 2.9 trillion. 

When Clinton took control of the budget on October 1, 1993, the national debt was 4.4 trillion. 

When Bush II took control of the budget on October 1, 2001, the national debt was 5.8 trillion. 

When Obama took control of the budget on October 1, 2009, the national debt was 11.9 trillion. 

That means the national debt went up;

1.5 trillion under Bush I
1.4 trillion under Clinton
6.1 trillion under Bush II (not including the cost of his wars). 

Since Obama has been in office (using the number you provided in the OP), the national debt has gone up 3.7 trillion since Obama took office, including the cost of the 2 wars Bush II refused to allow into the budget... Still pretty far from the third your article claims.       

 




7SportsMom7
by Bronze Member on Sep. 30, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Meadowchik has a gift for explaining things on this site in a rational way ... and she is patient enough to do it.  I can hardly stand some of the bitterness and "gotcha" comments that regularly interrupt good debates so I'm glad she's here :)

Quoting Debrowsky:

You made some very good observations about Mitt Romney that I hadn't thought of before, Meadowchick.  I also appreciated your evaluations of Obama's track record.  all in all I think you made some very valid points.   thanks. 

Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting JanetMonroe1991:


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting JanetMonroe1991:

yeah cause his party has TOTAL control of congress....oh wait...silly me that must have someone else's congress in the fanasty world that repubs live in where everyone has puppies and children, corperations are people, and you don't need control of both chambers of congress to get things done. i could post video clips of repub house members who don't even understand how congress works but since when have facts ever meant anything to the birther party?

And the opposition is likely to increase id Obama is re-elected, as the GOP has some good prospects of gaining seats.  Why not Romney? He is a strong bipartisan leader who has experience streamlining organizations and an aptitude for fiscal matters.

for me at least, i refuse to vote for someone that i don't know where they stand on issues that matter to me. see hes "changed his mind" so many times in the past that he is the only one that knows where he truely stands. and normally that wouldn't bother me so much, only hes changed his mind on pretty much everything you can change your mind about and those changes have coresponded with the people he is trying to win over. in other words he is saying whatever he thinks the people he is talking to want to hear. watch when he is running vs obama how quickly he backs off of many of his statements to try and swing himself back to the middle. watch but don't be fooled into beliving that a single word that is coming out of his mouth is true.

This, to me, is rather silly.  I respect someone who can change their mind, and when Romney has changed his mind  it has been for 1 of 3 reasons as far as I can tell: 1) a true change of heart--and he has not gone back and forth, either. 2)changing position to what is feasible due to the will of the people, in other words, he's not a dictator or egotist, and 3) changing position bc a new understanding of the law: he respects the rule of law.  Those are changes I can respect and which I actually find essential in a leader of good character.

and i wouldn't say that the GOP has a good chance of gaining seats...considering that they have pissed off women across the nation with their attack on our rights. you know focusing on our bodies when they should be focused on trying to create jobs. if you think that we fail to notice what is going on at the state level and that we can be lulled into beliving that they really want what is best for us then your crazy. and if you believe they really want what is best for us, when what they really want is total control over our bodies, then your stupid and i can't think of a nicer way of putting that.

Hopefully you and others who are unhappy with their state congressmen and governors will make their voices known. Just remember that state Congressmen are not US Congressmen ;) The National GOP is not waging a war on women, but Obama sure would love it if women thought so, which I'm pretty sure is why he went back and forth on the contraception mandate: first he promised religious protections, then he dropped them, then he shifted the cost as a so-called "middle ground."  This is classic Obama: divide and conquer. He is very good at manufacturing division but unable to unite both sides of the aisle in a practical manner. We need him out.




Mrgarfield007
by Member on Oct. 25, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Being a President is hard to do especially balancing a n economy that has been brought to the ground by the previous stupid President Bush and Cheney. You have 2 wars and a bunkrupt economy, in 4 years you can't balance that not even in 8 years the next President after Obama if Romney wins just like Bush will even make it worst because his one desire is not for the middle income but for his already wealthy friends. Don't let corporate power amass more wealth they have done this even after World War 2 and still continuing until now.
4kidz916
by Gold Member on Oct. 25, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Balancing the economy may not have been possible but adding this much debt surely hasn't been a practical solution. 

Quoting Mrgarfield007:

Being a President is hard to do especially balancing a n economy that has been brought to the ground by the previous stupid President Bush and Cheney. You have 2 wars and a bunkrupt economy, in 4 years you can't balance that not even in 8 years the next President after Obama if Romney wins just like Bush will even make it worst because his one desire is not for the middle income but for his already wealthy friends. Don't let corporate power amass more wealth they have done this even after World War 2 and still continuing until now.


HardRockKim
by Member on Oct. 25, 2012 at 1:51 PM

angry


Quoting imamomzilla:

 bad

He's more interested in speculating what Barry Jr. would look like, and what vacation to plan next than doing his JOB. Work is for boring people.


mom_3.0
by Member on Oct. 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM

I couldn't have said it better.

Quoting Sisteract:


Quoting rccmom:

Absolutely true. And while Obama has not done the best job possible, I do believe the Republicans believe they gain by not allowing him to pass a budget. Of course the Dems were idiots for not passing a budget in the first place before the Repubs got to take their elected seats. They, the Dems, should have at least passed a budget at that time, but they listened to the Repubs saying how unfair that would be to not allow them to come into the offices they were elected to.

Anyway, I don't see any Republican or Democratic plan working. They need to CUT spending and RAISE taxes, or at least close the tax loopholes. According to Norquist's (sp?) binding contract that so many Repubs signed, any loophole closing much be revenue neutral. That is insanity. So, Repubs will not allow any loophole closed be allowed to increase the amount of money the govt gets. They call it "increasing taxes" when it is simply closing a loophole that never should have existed.

And they need to look beyond just cutting social programs, and environmental programs. I get the feeling that all the Repubs want to do is cut regulation allowing businesses to run rough shod over the environment, and cut help for the poor. All the Dems want to do is raise taxes on the rich, and keep the social programs. Though Obama has signaled his willingness to cut the business tax, if they cut the loopholes. I haven't heard any takers on the Repubs side even though they are all for a lower business tax.

In the end, since I believe neither party's plan will work, I believe the Dems will cause the least overall harm. The best solution though would be for them to uh oh, here's that dirty word, compromise, and do their jobs! 


I AGREE !!!!!!! clapping


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)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN