Nacy P actually just said

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and thank you for proving my point. You can not defend Obama without pointing a finger at someone else. It is not possible. So it's cool Obama has run the debt up because Reagan did to. ??

No, it's not okay. Fact of the matter is, however, that we had few choices. We could, of course, have let the 2001/2003 tax cuts expire as scheduled. In my opinion, that would have been the right thing to do. We could have not extended hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax cuts to Americans as part of the Recovery Act. That would have been foolish as it would caused the economy to contract even more leading to even higher deficits. We could have gone austere. That necessarily contracts the economy produces larger deficits in the short term. So that would be a non-starter if you want to achieve growth. Fact of the matter is that there wasn't much - if anything at all - that could have been done to push the deficit below a trillion dollars. Did Obama mess up the tax cut extension? Absolutely. Would Republicans have let them expire? Of course not! Fact of the matter is that a Republican administration would have run at least the same deficits. Aside from the Bush tax cut extension, there isn't any specific Obama initiative that anyone can point out that explains these huge deficits. Not one.

[웃 910]

How about CBO projections compared to what the president actually produced. Anyone have a graph for that?

I know Clinton passed a FY 2001 surplus somewhere between $200 and $300 billion. And the trend was projected to continue for the next decade totaling $5.6 trillion.

Bush saw that projection and his mouth started watering for tax cuts. He didn't get a single surplus and passed a $1.2 trillion FY 2009 deficit to Obama.

The point is Obama is right on track with projections, and Bush was a complete failure.

Edited September 5, 2012 by ☠

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

The accompanying article is pretty interesting as well. http://independentsofprinciple.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/the-drivers-of-national-debt/

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

How about CBO projections compared to what the president actually produced. Anyone have a graph for that?

I know Clinton passed a FY 2001 surplus somewhere between $200 and $300 billion. And the trend was projected to continue for the next decade totaling $5.6 trillion.

Bush saw that projection and his mouth started watering for tax cuts. He didn't get a single surplus and passed a $1.2 trillion FY 2009 deficit to Obama.

The point is Obama is right on track with projections, and Bush was a complete failure.

He also received bad advice from Greenspan. If there is anyone that could be blamed for the last 5 years its Greenspan

Edited September 5, 2012 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

and when you add in Job loss where does that leave us ??

As of the end of this first term - just about flat up a couple hundred thousand jobs. Not great but not all that different as the total of the two terms of the previous administration. GDP is growing, jobs are created, stock markets are up sharply. They weren't when Bush left office - they were some 40% below where they were when he came into office. I think the outlook is much better when jobs are added - even if the pace is slow which isn't unusual following a financial crisis followed by massive deleveraging - than when they are lost at a pace of close to a million a month.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The accompanying article is pretty interesting as well. http://independentsofprinciple.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/the-drivers-of-national-debt/

Too much fact. This is P&R.

[Póg mo 1,749]

On National TV. I loosely quote-- "When Clinton left office we were on a path to debt decrease but after a few short years Bush had erased that and increased the Debt by XXX Billion. This proves the Republicans don't care about the debt.

Now I agree Bush ran up the debt and spent like a drunken Democrat. However Obama has been in office going on 4 years and increased the debt by almost 5 trillion.

Is Pelosi that stupid or does she think we are.. I can;t imagine anyone saying that with a straight face. How could in 2012 after what Obama has done to the debt any democrat be stupid enough to be talking about what Bush did to the debt. Is America and the democratic base really that dumb ??/ Someone pinch me !

The US economy was essentially driven off a fiscal cliff in 2008 and unfortunately for Obama, voodoo economics as practiced by Reagan and Bush are no longer an option.

[james&olya 1,121]

It's what happens when the economy contracts some 9% because of failed trickle down voodoo economic policies. Takes time to get out from under that. Everyone knows that, of course, but Republicans want you to believe that they would have done better. Well, we lived through what they created and left behind. And now they want to do it all over again. That might sound great if you suffer from amnesia but otherwise it just stinks.

The problem is that trickle down voodoo economics has worked quite well for the only individuals that really matter for the repubs! The top 1% and especially the top 0.1% have done fabulously well with the policies that GWB put in place and which the paid employees of the 0.1% in DC (congressional republicans and filibuster wielding minority senate republicans) have steadfastly guarded. Why wouldn't they want to perpetuate this situation? To that end they have their paid employees on SCOTUS to thank for gutting campaign finance reform so that the weak-minded tea party types will stupidly walk off that financial cliff and take the country down with them!

[Póg mo 1,749]

Too much fact. This is P&R.

Regressives are funny. I met one the other day who told me he wasn't going to vote Democrat because he didn't like the no child left behind act. I tried explaining that it was Bush II who signed off on that particular piece of #######, but he just wouldn't believe me.

[Darnell 8,479]

'Regressive' is the new label for 'Revisionist' ? Goodness, I learn something new.. Thanks for that.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, it's not okay. Fact of the matter is, however, that we had few choices. We could, of course, have let the 2001/2003 tax cuts expire as scheduled. In my opinion, that would have been the right thing to do. We could have not extended hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax cuts to Americans as part of the Recovery Act. That would have been foolish as it would caused the economy to contract even more leading to even higher deficits. We could have gone austere. That necessarily contracts the economy produces larger deficits in the short term. So that would be a non-starter if you want to achieve growth. Fact of the matter is that there wasn't much - if anything at all - that could have been done to push the deficit below a trillion dollars. Did Obama mess up the tax cut extension? Absolutely. Would Republicans have let them expire? Of course not! Fact of the matter is that a Republican administration would have run at least the same deficits. Aside from the Bush tax cut extension, there isn't any specific Obama initiative that anyone can point out that explains these huge deficits. Not one.

Once again you can't defend Obama with out pointing out what a Republican may have done. Obama owns the last 3.5 years like it or not.

[Póg mo 1,749]

'Regressive' is the new label for 'Revisionist' ? Goodness, I learn something new.. Thanks for that.

Oh I see, you think being a misinformed republican voter, makes one a revisionist?

Edited September 5, 2012 by InKorea

[Póg mo 1,749]

Once again you can't defend Obama with out pointing out what a Republican may have done. Obama owns the last 3.5 years like it or not.

Once again, you simply can't criticize Obama's record of being POTUS and then ignore everything on the previous guys watch, especially considering unprecedented deterioration in government revenue.

[Darnell 8,479]

Oh I see, you think being a misinformed republican voter, makes one a revisionist?

Not Sure !!!! (alas )

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Once again you can't defend Obama with out pointing out what a Republican may have done. Obama owns the last 3.5 years like it or not.

You can take the hypothetical on what McCain may or may not have done out of that post and the case for Obama remains the same.