$20 Trillion national debt...Obama doubled it in less tha 7 years!!

[Guest]

Not much of an article but at least a reminder to some keeping track of all the great things Obama has done or my preferred list of more significance....what he has not done.

Obama presidency to end with $20 trillion national debt - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/)

Maybe we can find a case study that defines how the additional $10 billion was spent.

Given the reductions and emasculation of the military branches, no space program, USA infrastructure collapsing around us, cyber attacks on the increase, just to name a few.....makes one wonder where the money is being spent.

We know that $35 billion goes to foreign aide and for that we get _ _ ? _ _.

[Guest]

For those who choose to spend the time and understand here is a site that does a decent job of explaining:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-what/?gclid=CMqUveWE8sgCFUqRHwodw74JXw

Check out the other tabs offering information about the financial workings.

Hopefully others will have additional resources to help us become more or better informed.

NB: This information is presented as party neutral. Not looking for the typical blame game or excuses. It just so happens the national debt will more than double under Obama....statement of fact. Let us see if we can understand why and how and what it means.

[Guest]

This Washington Times article is why you can't trust any reporting service, TV or newspaper. Figures lie, and liars figure. When you start counting debt increase from day one on Obama's presidency, you have no interest in reporting the truth. The very real question is what did President Obama do in his first 27 days of presidency that caused as debt increase of 789 billion dollars? Second question, what was the condition of the economy, when he took office?

Unless you take into consideration these two items, you are not being honest tagging all the debt increase on his policies. Has Obama's policies increased national debt? Of course, they have, but not to the extent he is being charged with. The following are dates and amounts of the debt increases
September 29, 2007 9,815 +850 Pub.L. 110–91
June 5, 2008 10,615 +800 Pub.L. 110–289
October 3, 2008 11,315[31] +700 Pub.L. 110–343
February 17, 2009 12,104[32] +789 Pub.L. 111–5
December 24, 2009 12,394 +290 Pub.L. 111–123
February 12, 2010 14,294 +1,900 Pub

It appears that 2,989 trillion (14,294-11,315) was a result of the great recession.

[Guest]

This Washington Times article is why you can't trust any reporting service, TV or newspaper. Figures lie, and liars figure. When you start counting debt increase from day one on Obama's presidency, you have no interest in reporting the truth. The very real question is what did President Obama do in his first 27 days of presidency that caused as debt increase of 789 billion dollars? Second question, what was the condition of the economy, when he took office?

Unless you take into consideration these two items, you are not being honest tagging all the debt increase on his policies. Has Obama's policies increased national debt? Of course, they have, but not to the extent he is being charged with. The following are dates and amounts of the debt increases
September 29, 2007 9,815 +850 Pub.L. 110–91
June 5, 2008 10,615 +800 Pub.L. 110–289
October 3, 2008 11,315[31] +700 Pub.L. 110–343
February 17, 2009 12,104[32] +789 Pub.L. 111–5
December 24, 2009 12,394 +290 Pub.L. 111–123
February 12, 2010 14,294 +1,900 Pub

It appears that 2,989 trillion (14,294-11,315) was a result of the great recession.

When Obama took office the national debt was $10 trillion, and when he leaves it is expected to be $20 trillion. Spin it any way that you like, that is a $10 trillion increase.

[Guest]

When Obama took office the national debt was $10 trillion, and when he leaves it is expected to be $20 trillion. Spin it any way that you like, that is a $10 trillion increase.

Iff'n you don't like it, just don't vote for him again.

You might say you isn't going to vote for Hillary either but that is fine cause she going to win easily without your vote.

You can moan all you want about those who gets the free stuff but add all those people up and they will be voting for Hillary. Your vote has been cancelled out and the state goes to Hillary.

[Guest]

Iff'n you don't like it, just don't vote for him again.

You might say you isn't going to vote for Hillary either but that is fine cause she going to win easily without your vote.

You can moan all you want about those who gets the free stuff but add all those people up and they will be voting for Hillary. Your vote has been cancelled out and the state goes to Hillary.

Well, maybe Hilary will win, but she will be serving from behind bars. Wonder how much the White House will fetch if we rent it out. Gore was renting out the Lincoln room. Maybe we can ask him what the going rate is.

[Guest]

When Obama took office the national debt was $10 trillion, and when he leaves it is expected to be $20 trillion. Spin it any way that you like, that is a $10 trillion increase.

I'm spinning it. Try answering the two questions that I asked. No, the spin is placing responsibility for all the debt increase on him, and you wonder why normal people don't trust the far right Republicans. This is why. The only thing that they can do is play the blame game! The devil is in the details, so they just ignore the details.

[Guest]

I'm spinning it. Try answering the two questions that I asked. No, the spin is placing responsibility for all the debt increase on him, and you wonder why normal people don't trust the far right Republicans. This is why. The only thing that they can do is play the blame game! The devil is in the details, so they just ignore the details.

:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

When Obama took office the national debt was $10 trillion, and when he leaves it is expected to be $20 trillion. Spin it any way that you like, that is a $10 trillion increase.

But he cut/decreased the deficit!!! :laugh:

Gotta love it when they talk about decreasing the deficit like that is a great thing. Balancing the budget would be better, but that won't ever happen in our lifetime again. Too many folks will panic and riot in the streets if they don't get their Obama phones and two years of unemployment benefits. And how about that health care? Free for everyone. We want everyone to live to be 100 so that they can take advantage of that great Social Security. What? No more Social Security? Raise the age to 80 and maybe we can stretch it out a bit. At least until I croak.

Yep, Obama brags about decreasing the deficit. What a dud! So, he decreased the amount of money that was spent that was more than the money coming in. So, that means we still have to borrow money, but not as much as first imagined. Whoopity - dooo! We're saved. Get back to me when you have more revenues coming in than being spent. Then tell me when you start paying down the national debt. Because you can't pay down on the national debt when you still have a deficit.

Don't get me wrong, I do realize that NO president since Eisenhower has paid down on the national debt. But, Obama felt he had to make history and double down on the national debt, all in his two terms. He has made history. He will go down in the books as the president that spent more than any other president in history. His answer is to blame Bush, like Obama got drafted for the presidency of something. Hey, after all we did have the "great recession" ha, ha. Of course, we have had recessions before, and depressions. Too bad he couldn't learn from them and get us back up and running as fast as the previous presidents that had to deal with recessions and depressions.

Hey, let's elect Hilary. She wants to give everybody a free lunch too. That means the economy will stay stagnant for another term or two. Hopefully, we won't become a third world socialist/communist country in that time.

Some folks have their head so far in the sand that they don't understand what socialism will mean to America. One good thing, if that, is that no one will be sneaking across our borders. Wonder if we will be able to get foreign aid from Russia.

[Guest]

I'm spinning it. Try answering the two questions that I asked. No, the spin is placing responsibility for all the debt increase on him, and you wonder why normal people don't trust the far right Republicans. This is why. The only thing that they can do is play the blame game! The devil is in the details, so they just ignore the details.

Is this statement a joke? All I've ever heard Obama do is blame someone. When has he EVER taken responsibility for ANYTHING? Oh, and I stand by my previous post. The $10 trillion being added to the debt during his "reign" belongs to him -- He owns it. It will be his legacy and only accomplishment.

[Guest]

Iff'n you don't like it, just don't vote for him again.

You might say you isn't going to vote for Hillary either but that is fine cause she going to win easily without your vote.

You can moan all you want about those who gets the free stuff but add all those people up and they will be voting for Hillary. Your vote has been cancelled out and the state goes to Hillary.

Ah yes the complete absence of addressing the subject of the post to only pull the string in the neck to deliver a canned message.....vote democrat no matter what....change the subject no matter what....cannot contribute because they do not know the subject matter and are not allowed to deviate from the agenda.

The subject was not presented as a partisan issue.....more information was provided to help understand how it works. Then understand, then try to get something done to change it.

We acknowledge some here are only equipped/capable of conducting partisan pi$$ing contests! They are the ones with the yellow shoes!

[Guest]

Is this statement a joke? All I've ever heard Obama do is blame someone. When has he EVER taken responsibility for ANYTHING? Oh, and I stand by my previous post. The $10 trillion being added to the debt during his "reign" belongs to him -- He owns it. It will be his legacy and only accomplishment.


Is this statement a joke? No, you are a joke. Answer the two questions that I asked. 27 days into his presidency the national debt went up. 769 billion dollars,. What did Obama do during those 27 days that increase the debt that much?

[Guest]

But he cut/decreased the deficit!!! :laugh:

Gotta love it when they talk about decreasing the deficit like that is a great thing. Balancing the budget would be better, but that won't ever happen in our lifetime again. Too many folks will panic and riot in the streets if they don't get their Obama phones and two years of unemployment benefits. And how about that health care? Free for everyone. We want everyone to live to be 100 so that they can take advantage of that great Social Security. What? No more Social Security? Raise the age to 80 and maybe we can stretch it out a bit. At least until I croak.

Yep, Obama brags about decreasing the deficit. What a dud! So, he decreased the amount of money that was spent that was more than the money coming in. So, that means we still have to borrow money, but not as much as first imagined. Whoopity - dooo! We're saved. Get back to me when you have more revenues coming in than being spent. Then tell me when you start paying down the national debt. Because you can't pay down on the national debt when you still have a deficit.

Don't get me wrong, I do realize that NO president since Eisenhower has paid down on the national debt. But, Obama felt he had to make history and double down on the national debt, all in his two terms. He has made history. He will go down in the books as the president that spent more than any other president in history. His answer is to blame Bush, like Obama got drafted for the presidency of something. Hey, after all we did have the "great recession" ha, ha. Of course, we have had recessions before, and depressions. Too bad he couldn't learn from them and get us back up and running as fast as the previous presidents that had to deal with recessions and depressions.

Hey, let's elect Hilary. She wants to give everybody a free lunch too. That means the economy will stay stagnant for another term or two. Hopefully, we won't become a third world socialist/communist country in that time.

Some folks have their head so far in the sand that they don't understand what socialism will mean to America. One good thing, if that, is that no one will be sneaking across our borders. Wonder if we will be able to get foreign aid from Russia.

The assumption that you are making is that all recession are the same. The makeup of the economy now isn't the same as it was in the 70's and 80's. Production jobs have left the US in great numbers. Automation has taken away jobs also. Demand for products is different. The depth of the recession wasn't the same as it was in the past. You are not comparing apples and apples. what worked before doesn't work now.

Reagan walked into the presidency during a recession, and didn't do a damn thing in his first two years to correct it. The recession corrected itself. Any company that was flirting with bankruptcy went out of business during these two years.

World War II got us out of the Great Depression. You have full employment in times of war.

This talk about the US becoming a socialist country is total nonsense. We have social programs now, that doesn't mean we a socialist country. With all the lobbyists representing big business in Washington, how in the name of God's creation will the US become a socialist country? Socialism sounds like a swear word so the Republican politicians will keep throwing it out there to scare the uninformed public.

If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit.

[Guest]

The assumption that you are making is that all recession are the same. The makeup of the economy now isn't the same as it was in the 70's and 80's. Production jobs have left the US in great numbers. Automation has taken away jobs also. Demand for products is different. The depth of the recession wasn't the same as it was in the past. You are not comparing apples and apples. what worked before doesn't work now.

Reagan walked into the presidency during a recession, and didn't do a damn thing in his first two years to correct it. The recession corrected itself. Any company that was flirting with bankruptcy went out of business during these two years.

World War II got us out of the Great Depression. You have full employment in times of war.

This talk about the US becoming a socialist country is total nonsense. We have social programs now, that doesn't mean we a socialist country. With all the lobbyists representing big business in Washington, how in the name of God's creation will the US become a socialist country? Socialism sounds like a swear word so the Republican politicians will keep throwing it out there to scare the uninformed public.

If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit.

Nice try at "baffling" them.

"Socialism" IS a swear word. Maybe you don't remember that America has fought wars against socialism/communism. It is a REAL threat to America, only now the war is on the inside. The word Socialism in America is synonymous with the word "lazy." Where else would you have stupid, ignorant people protesting the rich for being rich? You may not be "uninformed" or ignorant, but you sure are naive if you don't realize the socialist threat in America. While the Democrats embrace socialism, I will continue to support those that fight it, and still embrace capitalism. You see, I have no problem with the rich getting richer. Because that is why our supposed poverty level families live like middle class in other countries, socialist countries. The rich get richer and the lower level classes live better. The gov doesn't improve one's lifestyle. It only makes slaves of the lower class.

[Guest]

Nice try at "baffling" them.

"Socialism" IS a swear word. Maybe you don't remember that America has fought wars against socialism/communism. It is a REAL threat to America, only now the war is on the inside. The word Socialism in America is synonymous with the word "lazy." Where else would you have stupid, ignorant people protesting the rich for being rich? You may not be "uninformed" or ignorant, but you sure are naive if you don't realize the socialist threat in America. While the Democrats embrace socialism, I will continue to support those that fight it, and still embrace capitalism. You see, I have no problem with the rich getting richer. Because that is why our supposed poverty level families live like middle class in other countries, socialist countries. The rich get richer and the lower level classes live better. The gov doesn't improve one's lifestyle. It only makes slaves of the lower class.

One thing for sure, you can't baffle close minded individuals. There was nothing in my post that you referred to that should be considered baffling.

Social security is a socialist program. Under your definition of socialism, we are lazy. I don't think that I am lazy. How about you, are you lazy? Tagging all people with the lazy tag, because of a few to justify a warped view is something that you have to expect from the lazy politicians, who only want to criticize, condemn, and complain, and never offer an alternative to anything. If they do offer an alternative, it is one they know their opponent will never accept. You can add mean to the lazy in describing these politicians.

The USA will never become a socialist country. What ever happened to the socialist/communist countries that we fought wars against? Germany, and Japan seem to be doing just fine now. We fought the Korean War against China. Now, what is our capitalist country doing, sending millions of jobs there. Sounds like big business isn't worried about socialism/communism. We have socialist programs, but we aren't anywhere close to a socialist country, given the truth definition of "socialism".

The economy is the major item people want to address in the next presidential election. It is the middle class that is yelling the loudest. We do have a better life style than countries in Europe with more socialist programs than ours. However, our lifestyle has been slipping, since the 70's. Trickle down nonsense doesn't work. Tax cuts that favor the upper class makes the national debt worse for no good reason. Flat tax is a simple fix for simple minded people.

You throw the word "slaves" out there to demean people. Why don't you use something more acceptable like "welfare moms"?

[Guest]

One thing for sure, you can't baffle close minded individuals. There was nothing in my post that you referred to that should be considered baffling.

Social security is a socialist program. Under your definition of socialism, we are lazy. I don't think that I am lazy. How about you, are you lazy? Tagging all people with the lazy tag, because of a few to justify a warped view is something that you have to expect from the lazy politicians, who only want to criticize, condemn, and complain, and never offer an alternative to anything. If they do offer an alternative, it is one they know their opponent will never accept. You can add mean to the lazy in describing these politicians.

The USA will never become a socialist country. What ever happened to the socialist/communist countries that we fought wars against? Germany, and Japan seem to be doing just fine now. We fought the Korean War against China. Now, what is our capitalist country doing, sending millions of jobs there. Sounds like big business isn't worried about socialism/communism. We have socialist programs, but we aren't anywhere close to a socialist country, given the truth definition of "socialism".

The economy is the major item people want to address in the next presidential election. It is the middle class that is yelling the loudest. We do have a better life style than countries in Europe with more socialist programs than ours. However, our lifestyle has been slipping, since the 70's. Trickle down nonsense doesn't work. Tax cuts that favor the upper class makes the national debt worse for no good reason. Flat tax is a simple fix for simple minded people.

You throw the word "slaves" out there to demean people. Why don't you use something more acceptable like "welfare moms"?

Yes, "close minded" is a term I would describe your posting.
I can tell that you are a Democrat/liberal from your taking the typical extreme position......"Social Security is a socialist program."
Germany doing well? You are going to endorse Germany as your example? That's pretty funny. I've been there, have you? Japan is doing well? Good luck on that one. Lived there twice, and I'll take America any day.
Tax cuts do NOT make the national debt worst. You are not very well informed on that matter. Tax cuts have improved the economy and increased tax revenues as a result of the better economy. Do some research before making off-hand comments like that.
You make comments like "simple minded people" and then want to chastise ME for using the word slaves? That is very humorous, as well as ludicrous. If you are one of those PC types, then you are in the wrong place. Sensitive people that want to cry about PC comments can kiss my PC as.. Is that PC enough for you? And I am saying that in an affectionate manner...:jester:

[Guest]

Just last week my party helped passed a big budget busting spending bill that you sure as hell cannot blame on Obama. Most on this forum will disagree but so called conservatives are every bit as responsible as democrats for the crippling debt. It is not surprising we cannot have an honest discussion on social security. This group is easily confused with facts.

[Guest]

Is this statement a joke? All I've ever heard Obama do is blame someone. When has he EVER taken responsibility for ANYTHING? Oh, and I stand by my previous post. The $10 trillion being added to the debt during his "reign" belongs to him -- He owns it. It will be his legacy and only accomplishment.

And that's the fact Jack!!!

[Guest]

Is this statement a joke? No, you are a joke. Answer the two questions that I asked. 27 days into his presidency the national debt went up. 769 billion dollars,. What did Obama do during those 27 days that increase the debt that much?

Oh, so in your eyes, Obama is ONLY responsible for adding an additional $9.231 trillion to the national debt and not the $10 trillion claimed by the press. Either way he is still an incompetent political hack!

[Guest]

Obama is the most expensive political experiment in U.S. history. No one can deny that. The figures prove it.

[Guest]

Just last week my party helped passed a big budget busting spending bill that you sure as hell cannot blame on Obama. Most on this forum will disagree but so called conservatives are every bit as responsible as democrats for the crippling debt. It is not surprising we cannot have an honest discussion on social security. This group is easily confused with facts.

Conservatives had to pass that budget or cripple their chances at electing a Republican president this time around. Obama NEVER signs anything he doesn't wish to sign and holds the country hostage until he gets his way. Even if he has to use E.O. to get his way. He is as petulant as a spoiled child, and can't leave D.C. fast enough.

[Guest]

Oh, so in your eyes, Obama is ONLY responsible for adding an additional $9.231 trillion to the national debt and not the $10 trillion claimed by the press. Either way he is still an incompetent political hack!

I have a degree in accounting. Math, and common sense aren't a problem for me. The national debt for Obama clock starts running on 10/1/09, and not 1/20/09. Answer the question, what did Obama do in the first 27 days of his presidency that the national debt had to increase by 700 billion dollars? What did Obama do that caused the Great Recession 2008/2009? If you can't answer these simple questions, you are not being honest.

Here is the math that Republicans refused to accept, because it doesn't fit their warped belief, spread by the Republican media, that Obama has doubled the national debt.

National Debt 9/30/09 was 11,909, and the debt n 9/30/15 18,150. That is an increase of 6,241 trillion.

National debt on 9/30/01 was 5,807, debt on 9/30/09 was 11,909. That is an increase of 6,102 trillion.

Bush increase in eight years is $6,102 trillion Obama increase in six years is 6,241 trillion. Neither is very good, but Obama will not double the national debt during his eight years.

If Obama is an incompetent hack, what was "W"? I think that "W" was a decent president that was surrounded by total jerks, that made his presidency one of the worse in the history of this country.

[Guest]

I have a degree in accounting. Math, and common sense aren't a problem for me. The national debt for Obama clock starts running on 10/1/09, and not 1/20/09. Answer the question, what did Obama do in the first 27 days of his presidency that the national debt had to increase by 700 billion dollars? What did Obama do that caused the Great Recession 2008/2009? If you can't answer these simple questions, you are not being honest.

Here is the math that Republicans refused to accept, because it doesn't fit their warped belief, spread by the Republican media, that Obama has doubled the national debt.

National Debt 9/30/09 was 11,909, and the debt n 9/30/15 18,150. That is an increase of 6,241 trillion.

National debt on 9/30/01 was 5,807, debt on 9/30/09 was 11,909. That is an increase of 6,102 trillion.

Bush increase in eight years is $6,102 trillion Obama increase in six years is 6,241 trillion. Neither is very good, but Obama will not double the national debt during his eight years.

If Obama is an incompetent hack, what was "W"? I think that "W" was a decent president that was surrounded by total jerks, that made his presidency one of the worse in the history of this country.

As Dana Carvey would you say, "Aren't you special".

[Guest]

As Dana Carvey would you say, "Aren't you special".

He's special OK. And he manipulates numbers and money JUST LIKE the gov. Lots of smoke and mirrors, and little substance.

[Guest]

He also neglects to mention that until the last two years of Bush's presidency, Bush's deficits were only in the billions. The last two years were totally Democrat congressional majority. And who holds the purse strings?

[Guest]

He also neglects to mention that until the last two years of Bush's presidency, Bush's deficits were only in the billions. The last two years were totally Democrat congressional majority. And who holds the purse strings?

Am I special? Using the three people that responded to my post, I am special. Why, because I am honest.

Is anyone of the three honest? If you are answer the following question, "What did Obama do in his first 27 days of his presidency that he should be tagged with the 699 billion in national debt increase?" If I am playing with numbers, that should be a very easy question to answer.

While you are at it, take a look at the national debt at the end of the government's fiscal year.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

Every year the national debt under "W" increased over 500 billion dollars. Since when is 500 billion a small number?

Unlike you three, I do look at the events of the time that had a lot to do with the national debt increase, and not blame "W" as if was a free spending liberal. The wars, and the great recession had a lot to do with the increase of national debt under Obama, whether you like it or not.

[Guest]

Am I special? Using the three people that responded to my post, I am special. Why, because I am honest.

Is anyone of the three honest? If you are answer the following question, "What did Obama do in his first 27 days of his presidency that he should be tagged with the 699 billion in national debt increase?" If I am playing with numbers, that should be a very easy question to answer.

While you are at it, take a look at the national debt at the end of the government's fiscal year.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

Every year the national debt under "W" increased over 500 billion dollars. Since when is 500 billion a small number?

Unlike you three, I do look at the events of the time that had a lot to do with the national debt increase, and not blame "W" as if was a free spending liberal. The wars, and the great recession had a lot to do with the increase of national debt under Obama, whether you like it or not.

In an earlier post, I ceded you the $769 (now it's $799) billion that you claim was added in the 27-day period. That still leaves $9.201 trillion of debt added to the national debt by the Obama administration.

The $799 billion of debt that you insist upon having explained (which I have already ceded) is of minor consequence when you consider the larger debit picture.

[Guest]

Iff'n you don't like it, just don't vote for him again.

You might say you isn't going to vote for Hillary either but that is fine cause she going to win easily without your vote.

You can moan all you want about those who gets the free stuff but add all those people up and they will be voting for Hillary. Your vote has been cancelled out and the state goes to Hillary.

When your kids and grandkids visit your gravesite they can reminiss about the America we used to have, and stand there dumbfounded attempting to figure out how to get "We the People" back into their lives.

[Guest]

Am I special? Using the three people that responded to my post, I am special. Why, because I am honest.

Is anyone of the three honest? If you are answer the following question, "What did Obama do in his first 27 days of his presidency that he should be tagged with the 699 billion in national debt increase?" If I am playing with numbers, that should be a very easy question to answer.

While you are at it, take a look at the national debt at the end of the government's fiscal year.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

Every year the national debt under "W" increased over 500 billion dollars. Since when is 500 billion a small number?


Unlike you three, I do look at the events of the time that had a lot to do with the national debt increase, and not blame "W" as if was a free spending liberal. The wars, and the great recession had a lot to do with the increase of national debt under Obama, whether you like it or not.

I think I have warned you before not to confuse the Sean Hannity contingency on this forum with intellect and fact.

[Guest]

I think I have warned you before not to confuse the Sean Hannity contingency on this forum with intellect and fact.

Don't worry, there won't be any confusion. Hannity doesn't have a conversation with himself, like the one and lonely liberal on here.

Obama's Economic Stimulus Package $787 billion
Bush's deficits ran mostly in the billions per year.
Obama's deficits almost always ran into the trillions.

Bush's Deficit:

FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Democrat congress)
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion. (Democrat congress)
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Obama's Deficit:

FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

[Guest]

Factcheck.org Jan 9, 2015

"The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office."

[Guest]

Don't worry, there won't be any confusion. Hannity doesn't have a conversation with himself, like the one and lonely liberal on here.

Obama's Economic Stimulus Package $787 billion
Bush's deficits ran mostly in the billions per year.
Obama's deficits almost always ran into the trillions.

Bush's Deficit:

FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Democrat congress)
FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion. (Democrat congress)
FY 2007 - $501 billion.
FY 2006 - $574 billion.
FY 2005 - $554 billion.
FY 2004 - $596 billion.
FY 2003 - $555 billion.
FY 2002 - $421 billion.

Obama's Deficit:

FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
FY 2013 - $672 billion.
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

Thank you Sean Hannity for reporting the actual truth about the debt increase. There is one liberal here, and me, a moderate independent. You shouldn't confuse us.

Did you add the numbers. The debt increase under "W" adds to $5,850 trillion. The debt increase under Obama adds to $6,168. How does that double the debt under Obama. The number that I threw out there for Bush was $6,102 trillion. The difference is the 253 billion that Hannity added to Obama 5,850 + 253 = 6,103. I don't have a problem with that.

Hannity did not add the entire increase 1,884 trillion of the national debt for the fiscal year ending in 9/30/09 to Obama. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't, you have to drop the doubling of the debt under Obama.

[Guest]

In an earlier post, I ceded you the $769 (now it's $799) billion that you claim was added in the 27-day period. That still leaves $9.201 trillion of debt added to the national debt by the Obama administration.

The $799 billion of debt that you insist upon having explained (which I have already ceded) is of minor consequence when you consider the larger debit picture.

You shouldn't have ceded the $769 billion increase in the first 27 days of Obama's presidency. I actually screwed up. The 769 billion is actually 789 billion. However, that is the amount the debt ceiling was increased, and not the actual amount spent during the first 27 days. My mistake. I didn't do it on purpose to support my argument that Obama hasn't doubled the debt.

Debt Ceiling - Under Modern U.S. Presidents (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/tp/5-Presidents-Who-Raised-The-Debt-Limit.htm)

However, take a look at my post using Hannity's numbers above. I wasn't playing with numbers. The screw up with increase in the debt ceiling made it impossible to answer my question about the 27 days. At least, when I am wrong I admit that I am wrong.

[Guest]

Thank you Sean Hannity for reporting the actual truth about the debt increase. There is one liberal here, and me, a moderate independent. You shouldn't confuse us.

Did you add the numbers. The debt increase under "W" adds to $5,850 trillion. The debt increase under Obama adds to $6,168. How does that double the debt under Obama. The number that I threw out there for Bush was $6,102 trillion. The difference is the 253 billion that Hannity added to Obama 5,850 + 253 = 6,103. I don't have a problem with that.

Hannity did not add the entire increase 1,884 trillion of the national debt for the fiscal year ending in 9/30/09 to Obama. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't, you have to drop the doubling of the debt under Obama.

I don't know what Hannity has to do with this. I don't watch Hannity, but your endorsement (and fear of him) will probably cause me to check it out.

You can read the information that I provided and decide for yourself. I quoted the information. Obama did double the public debt, as I showed you. The national debt will double by the time he leaves office. I applaud your loyalty to a loser and failure, but really?

[Guest]

I don't know what Hannity has to do with this. I don't watch Hannity, but your endorsement (and fear of him) will probably cause me to check it out.

You can read the information that I provided and decide for yourself. I quoted the information. Obama did double the public debt, as I showed you. The national debt will double by the time he leaves office. I applaud your loyalty to a loser and failure, but really?

You are being ever so kind to the likes of this "loyal" (remaining polite) person.

[Guest]

Thank you Sean Hannity for reporting the actual truth about the debt increase. There is one liberal here, and me, a moderate independent. You shouldn't confuse us.

Did you add the numbers. The debt increase under "W" adds to $5,850 trillion. The debt increase under Obama adds to $6,168. How does that double the debt under Obama. The number that I threw out there for Bush was $6,102 trillion. The difference is the 253 billion that Hannity added to Obama 5,850 + 253 = 6,103. I don't have a problem with that.

Hannity did not add the entire increase 1,884 trillion of the national debt for the fiscal year ending in 9/30/09 to Obama. Do you have a problem with that? If you don't, you have to drop the doubling of the debt under Obama.

Liberal or Independent, both the same. A vote for Obama was a vote toward socialism, so an Independent is just a voter that won't admit what party he really is. My brother is registered as an Independent, but only votes Republican. He is a Republican that just doesn't want the label. A liberal Independent is the same as a liberal Democrat.

[Guest]

I don't know what Hannity has to do with this. I don't watch Hannity, but your endorsement (and fear of him) will probably cause me to check it out.

You can read the information that I provided and decide for yourself. I quoted the information. Obama did double the public debt, as I showed you. The national debt will double by the time he leaves office. I applaud your loyalty to a loser and failure, but really?

If you are the one that referenced the link fact check, I clicked on it, and it doesn't come up. Can you post it again?

The only reason that I endorsed Hannity is he is so far right that he doesn't give Obama credit for anything. He used the same numbers that I did, and they came from the Treasury. Using the Treasury numbers, there is no way that Obama will double the national debt.

[Guest]

Liberal or Independent, both the same. A vote for Obama was a vote toward socialism, so an Independent is just a voter that won't admit what party he really is. My brother is registered as an Independent, but only votes Republican. He is a Republican that just doesn't want the label. A liberal Independent is the same as a liberal Democrat.

What you are saying is the Republicans have moved so far to the right that moderates no longer exist. Everyone that doesn't agree with you is a liberal. It doesn't work that way. The Republicans that have moved so far right have left the grid. People that have left the grid opinions aren't worth a damn.

[Guest]

What you are saying is the Republicans have moved so far to the right that moderates no longer exist. Everyone that doesn't agree with you is a liberal. It doesn't work that way. The Republicans that have moved so far right have left the grid. People that have left the grid opinions aren't worth a damn.

Naw, you just assume that Republicans moved to the right, when in reality (something that eludes liberals) the Democrats have moved from left to socialists. The REpublicans have moved to the center, which is too liberal for me, but what choice do I have in my vote? I ain't gonna vote for no commie posing as a Democrat.

You see the difference is Patriotism versus Avarice. Some of us are patriotic, served our country fighting socialism and communism and care about the future of America. And then there are the Others, the liberals/socialists that care only for what the country can do for them, give to them. No responsibility, no care for America and even demonize America.

Sorry, but I have no respect for the latter. And I do not apologize for it. Yep, I'm a Christian, but I was told to love the sinner, hate the sin. And as far as I am concerned, anyone that attempts to hurt my country is the enemy....anybody.

[Guest]

Naw, you just assume that Republicans moved to the right, when in reality (something that eludes liberals) the Democrats have moved from left to socialists. The REpublicans have moved to the center, which is too liberal for me, but what choice do I have in my vote? I ain't gonna vote for no commie posing as a Democrat.

You see the difference is Patriotism versus Avarice. Some of us are patriotic, served our country fighting socialism and communism and care about the future of America. And then there are the Others, the liberals/socialists that care only for what the country can do for them, give to them. No responsibility, no care for America and even demonize America.

Sorry, but I have no respect for the latter. And I do not apologize for it. Yep, I'm a Christian, but I was told to love the sinner, hate the sin. And as far as I am concerned, anyone that attempts to hurt my country is the enemy....anybody.

:BigApplause: Very straight forward and to the point.!!! :BigApplause:

[Guest]

If you are the one that referenced the link fact check, I clicked on it, and it doesn't come up. Can you post it again?

The only reason that I endorsed Hannity is he is so far right that he doesn't give Obama credit for anything. He used the same numbers that I did, and they came from the Treasury. Using the Treasury numbers, there is no way that Obama will double the national debt.

Never say never. If Obama hears you say it can't be done, then he will attempt it. And to paraphrase his mentor the great reverend, America be damned.

[Guest]

Naw, you just assume that Republicans moved to the right, when in reality (something that eludes liberals) the Democrats have moved from left to socialists. The REpublicans have moved to the center, which is too liberal for me, but what choice do I have in my vote? I ain't gonna vote for no commie posing as a Democrat.

You see the difference is Patriotism versus Avarice. Some of us are patriotic, served our country fighting socialism and communism and care about the future of America. And then there are the Others, the liberals/socialists that care only for what the country can do for them, give to them. No responsibility, no care for America and even demonize America.

Sorry, but I have no respect for the latter. And I do not apologize for it. Yep, I'm a Christian, but I was told to love the sinner, hate the sin. And as far as I am concerned, anyone that attempts to hurt my country is the enemy....anybody.

The Republicans haven't moved to the right. With your logic, there has never been a moderate Republican. When the Republicans move to the center, they are liberals. You are so far right that it is literally impossible to go any further right. What you are avocating hurts this country. By your definition, you are enemy of yourself.

Given your attitude, you don't care about America. The only way that the US is going to advance is, if both parties work together. If someone doesn't agree with you, they are the enemy. You are also the enemy of common sense.

The only thing that I have received from the federal government is social security, and Medicare once I turned 65. I take that back. I received the great social benefit of every liberal American, which is paying taxes for 40+ years. That is a benefit that I could not do without.

[Guest]

This is not a football game where you root for one team and I root for another team. We're on the same team here. Why not simply be honest? You know Obama inherited a disaster. A disaster that happened under Bush (a republican). You also know it was Bush who signed off on the stimulus bill that created most of the debt you are talking about. What benefit is there for you to lie?

[Guest]

This is not a football game where you root for one team and I root for another team. We're on the same team here. Why not simply be honest? You know Obama inherited a disaster. A disaster that happened under Bush (a republican). You also know it was Bush who signed off on the stimulus bill that created most of the debt you are talking about. What benefit is there for you to lie?

Having a conversation with yourself again?

You must be very lonely.

[Guest]

This is not a football game where you root for one team and I root for another team. We're on the same team here. Why not simply be honest? You know Obama inherited a disaster. A disaster that happened under Bush (a republican). You also know it was Bush who signed off on the stimulus bill that created most of the debt you are talking about. What benefit is there for you to lie?

Obama did not "inherit" anything. He knew exactly what the Dems did to this country with their two years of congressional control during the end of the Bush administration. Don't come on here trying to convince anyone that Obama is to be pitied. There are better posters on here than myself that can educate you AGAIN as to the cause of any problems that Obama took on (and failed) when he won the election. Obama failed, plain and simple. No other president that had a recession or depression ever took as long to fix the economy. You socialists really need to grow some and admit that Obama is incompetent and was never ready for the job. You picked the wrong "one" to lead the country. Instead of bringing the country together when it needed it, Obama has been divisive and lowered it's world image as the greatest country. Obama was such a disappointment.

[Guest]

Having a conversation with yourself again?

You must be very lonely.

Well Mr. All Knowing, and All Seeing, believe it or not there are two of us not walking lock step with the Republican majority on this board.

To the person, that responded to my post that was addressed the loyal American that is at war with everyone that doesn't agree with him, now you know what you are dealing with here.

A football game has rules. Everybody is suppose to be dealing on an equal playing field. The Republicans here want to take their ball, and go home, if everything doesn't go their way. You didn't play by their rules, so you got the penalty that they always dish out. You are flagged for having a mental problem. That problem is Obama is responsible for all the sins in the world. If you don't accept this, you are a moron, and not worth talking to.

[Guest]

Obama did not "inherit" anything. He knew exactly what the Dems did to this country with their two years of congressional control during the end of the Bush administration. Don't come on here trying to convince anyone that Obama is to be pitied. There are better posters on here than myself that can educate you AGAIN as to the cause of any problems that Obama took on (and failed) when he won the election. Obama failed, plain and simple. No other president that had a recession or depression ever took as long to fix the economy. You socialists really need to grow some and admit that Obama is incompetent and was never ready for the job. You picked the wrong "one" to lead the country. Instead of bringing the country together when it needed it, Obama has been divisive and lowered it's world image as the greatest country. Obama was such a disappointment.

Well, the education that they are throwing out there is total nonsense. Obama is to be pitied. Where has anyone said that? If all you want to do is play the blame game, "W" doesn't walk away from the great recession.

The stance that almost very Republican has taken is Obama is responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the last 15 years. Even when Hannity throws out numbers from the Treasury to kill the argument that Obama hasn't doubled the National Debt, they totally ignore him. Sounds like people that watch Fox News don't want to be "fair and balanced".

The Democrat Congress had more power than the "W" in his last two years of his presidency. Maybe you should try to back that up with facts. He was turned back on some of his requests to Congress, but not everything like Obama has been dealing with, since Republicans have controlled Congress.

Concerning the length of the Great Recession, read this especially the last paragraph. Although the recession ended, people felt the effects long after it was considered over.
When did it end? | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/15911334)

[Guest]

This is not a football game where you root for one team and I root for another team. We're on the same team here. Why not simply be honest? You know Obama inherited a disaster. A disaster that happened under Bush (a republican). You also know it was Bush who signed off on the stimulus bill that created most of the debt you are talking about. What benefit is there for you to lie?

Bush Agrees To Obama Bailout Request - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-agrees-to-obama-bailout-request/)

"ACTING AT BARACK OBAMA'S BEHEST, President George W. Bush on Monday asked congress for the final 350 billion in the financial bailout...."

[Guest]

Bernie Sander's free stuff is calculated to come with a price tag of some $19 billion.

However when it comes to spending I am an equal opportunity complainer. Neither the Democrats, albeit they are bigger offenders, or Republicans can make claim that they are more responsible. Republican like Democrats love to spend other people's money and use it as leverage to buy votes and stuff their personal pockets.

Its why I ignore any tax plan any politicians advances because none of them know how to wisely utilize the taxpayer dollars they bleed from us.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Bernie Sander's free stuff is calculated to come with a price tag of some $19 billion.

However when it comes to spending I am an equal opportunity complainer. Neither the Democrats, albeit they are bigger offenders, or Republicans can make claim that they are more responsible. Republican like Democrats love to spend other people's money and use it as leverage to buy votes and stuff their personal pockets.

Its why I ignore any tax plan any politicians advances because none of them know how to wisely utilize the taxpayer dollars they bleed from us.

Personal Best Regards:

Good post, and only "political hacks" will name call and attempt to play the playground game of "no I didn't,you did"

What is really depressing about those political hacks is they don't even know what they are talking about..it is all the same rhetoric you read on the biased websites.

[Guest]

Well Mr. All Knowing, and All Seeing, believe it or not there are two of us not walking lock step with the Republican majority on this board.

To the person, that responded to my post that was addressed the loyal American that is at war with everyone that doesn't agree with him, now you know what you are dealing with here.

A football game has rules. Everybody is suppose to be dealing on an equal playing field. The Republicans here want to take their ball, and go home, if everything doesn't go their way. You didn't play by their rules, so you got the penalty that they always dish out. You are flagged for having a mental problem. That problem is Obama is responsible for all the sins in the world. If you don't accept this, you are a moron, and not worth talking to.

You need some professional help, IF you really believe what you posted. No one ever said Obama is to blame for everything. Of course, liberals like to go to the extreme when confronted with a statement where they have no other answer.
It is hilarious that you talk about Republicans taking the ball and going home if they don't get their way. Obviously, you have not been keeping up on current events in the past six years. The First two years, when Obamacare was passed, the Republicans weren't even invited to the game (your speak). Reid kept ANY bill passed by the House on his desk and did not allow it on the floor for a vote. I am not blaming all Deomcrats, just the radicals that followed Obama, Reid and Pelosi. The rest of the Democrats did not get re-elected because of the radicals.
So, blame Bush all you want, but Obama was not drafted. He ran for election and he knew exactly what he was getting into. So, he owns it. He was called in off the bench, ran some plays and lost the game. HE failed miserably and your answer is blaming it on a quarterback that isn't even in the game this season.
So, man up and quit crying about equality. No one is equal and you really need to wake up and realize this. No one is equal. They have equal opportunity, but they are not all equally talented.

[Guest]

the constitution is pretty clear on who is responsible for funding the government including taxation and raising debt, it is congress. congress makes laws and appropriates funds to implement them. the executive branch is responsible for carrying out the will of the people (congress) by implementing laws including spending laws sent to the president by congress. the truth is the needs of the country are greater than the revenue raised to meet them. if we the people want the benefits of government without increasing the debt we need to raise more revenue, the job of congress. too many politicians are elected on pledges of cutting spending and cutting taxes, how many have done so? its political theater for an uninformed electorate, a way to get elected and if elected, stay in the news. it is exploiting fear and division to get attention and diminish the legitimate role of government in a democratic society, it is pandering without conviction, it is politics. lets a grow up and be thankful for what government does and has done to help us reach and sustain the good lives we enjoy in the villages.

[Guest]

You need some professional help, IF you really believe what you posted. No one ever said Obama is to blame for everything. Of course, liberals like to go to the extreme when confronted with a statement where they have no other answer.
It is hilarious that you talk about Republicans taking the ball and going home if they don't get their way. Obviously, you have not been keeping up on current events in the past six years. The First two years, when Obamacare was passed, the Republicans weren't even invited to the game (your speak). Reid kept ANY bill passed by the House on his desk and did not allow it on the floor for a vote. I am not blaming all Deomcrats, just the radicals that followed Obama, Reid and Pelosi. The rest of the Democrats did not get re-elected because of the radicals.
So, blame Bush all you want, but Obama was not drafted. He ran for election and he knew exactly what he was getting into. So, he owns it. He was called in off the bench, ran some plays and lost the game. HE failed miserably and your answer is blaming it on a quarterback that isn't even in the game this season.
So, man up and quit crying about equality. No one is equal and you really need to wake up and realize this. No one is equal. They have equal opportunity, but they are not all equally talented.

You are holding true to form. Always start your post demeaning someone. You also follow up the insults by rewriting history. Why the do you think that it took two years to pass Obamacare? He was talking to Republicans to get their input or support for the bill. Olympia Snow, Republican from Maine, was one of the few Republicans, there may have been one other, whose mind wasn't caste in stone, either one way of the other.

Reid held up all bills, and never let them hit the Senate for a vote. When you pass a bill without any support from the other party, and you don't control both Houses, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How stupid do you have to be to send 54 bills to repeal Obamacare to the Senate?

By your definition of radical, Boehner is a radical. He never put bills that his far right party didn't support like the bipartisan on the floor for a vote. For heavens sake, the Republican have the Hastert rule in the House, and you are complaining about Democrats.

Take a look at the topic of this thread, there is no way in hell that you can say that Obama has doubled the national debt, when you use real numbers of debt supplied by the Treasury Dept.

Obama entered the game, when the score was 49 to nothing. So, he is to blame for the lost! What was the final score 152-0? Obama is the replacement quarterback. Looks like the replacement defense, the Republicans, didn't change the outcome of the game only made the score worse. Instead of tackling the opposition, they step aside, and said, "not my job, man!"

What have you been looking at on this board? It is the blame game. You play this game more than almost everyone here. Maybe just maybe, threads like this should die a quick death. That will never happen, because the majority of people here thrive on the negative. It is always someone else fault, and never my own.

Take a look at the 501(4)c charitable organizations on both sides, all they are doing is spouting the negative, that is what Karl Rove in his like, thrive on. The blame game is the only one that exists now like it or not. So, go right ahead and make Obama pure evil. You have to know that the only people that are listening to you are people like you. Like the nonsense, that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a liberal.

[Guest]

You are holding true to form. Always start your post demeaning someone. You also follow up the insults by rewriting history. Why the do you think that it took two years to pass Obamacare? He was talking to Republicans to get their input or support for the bill. Olympia Snow, Republican from Maine, was one of the few Republicans, there may have been one other, whose mind wasn't caste in stone, either one way of the other.

Reid held up all bills, and never let them hit the Senate for a vote. When you pass a bill without any support from the other party, and you don't control both Houses, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How stupid do you have to be to send 54 bills to repeal Obamacare to the Senate?

By your definition of radical, Boehner is a radical. He never put bills that his far right party didn't support like the bipartisan on the floor for a vote. For heavens sake, the Republican have the Hastert rule in the House, and you are complaining about Democrats.

Take a look at the topic of this thread, there is no way in hell that you can say that Obama has doubled the national debt, when you use real numbers of debt supplied by the Treasury Dept.

Obama entered the game, when the score was 49 to nothing. So, he is to blame for the lost! What was the final score 152-0? Obama is the replacement quarterback. Looks like the replacement defense, the Republicans, didn't change the outcome of the game only made the score worse. Instead of tackling the opposition, they step aside, and said, "not my job, man!"

What have you been looking at on this board? It is the blame game. You play this game more than almost everyone here. Maybe just maybe, threads like this should die a quick death. That will never happen, because the majority of people here thrive on the negative. It is always someone else fault, and never my own.

Take a look at the 501(4)c charitable organizations on both sides, all they are doing is spouting the negative, that is what Karl Rove in his like, thrive on. The blame game is the only one that exists now like it or not. So, go right ahead and make Obama pure evil. You have to know that the only people that are listening to you are people like you. Like the nonsense, that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a liberal.

This is not a demeaning post, as you seem to feel most are.

It is actually a compliment to you when I say the Democratic party must be so very proud of you. Not many as consistent in their defense of this administration in every issue and more condemning of the Republican party.

You are consistent and please, that is not demeaning.

[Guest]

You are holding true to form. Always start your post demeaning someone. You also follow up the insults by rewriting history. Why the do you think that it took two years to pass Obamacare? He was talking to Republicans to get their input or support for the bill. Olympia Snow, Republican from Maine, was one of the few Republicans, there may have been one other, whose mind wasn't caste in stone, either one way of the other.

Reid held up all bills, and never let them hit the Senate for a vote. When you pass a bill without any support from the other party, and you don't control both Houses, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How stupid do you have to be to send 54 bills to repeal Obamacare to the Senate?

By your definition of radical, Boehner is a radical. He never put bills that his far right party didn't support like the bipartisan on the floor for a vote. For heavens sake, the Republican have the Hastert rule in the House, and you are complaining about Democrats.

Take a look at the topic of this thread, there is no way in hell that you can say that Obama has doubled the national debt, when you use real numbers of debt supplied by the Treasury Dept.

Obama entered the game, when the score was 49 to nothing. So, he is to blame for the lost! What was the final score 152-0? Obama is the replacement quarterback. Looks like the replacement defense, the Republicans, didn't change the outcome of the game only made the score worse. Instead of tackling the opposition, they step aside, and said, "not my job, man!"

What have you been looking at on this board? It is the blame game. You play this game more than almost everyone here. Maybe just maybe, threads like this should die a quick death. That will never happen, because the majority of people here thrive on the negative. It is always someone else fault, and never my own.

Take a look at the 501(4)c charitable organizations on both sides, all they are doing is spouting the negative, that is what Karl Rove in his like, thrive on. The blame game is the only one that exists now like it or not. So, go right ahead and make Obama pure evil. You have to know that the only people that are listening to you are people like you. Like the nonsense, that everyone that doesn't agree with you is a liberal.

Typical liberal spew, with your distorted view of fact. You are beyond redemption and have been blinded by visiting way too many liberal blogs run by teenagers and college radicals. I'm sorry, I can debate each point you use to cast blame elsewhere, but I know better than to argue with the liberal troll when he has his head in a drug induced fog.

Defending Obama, Reid and Pelosi just proves your lack of intuitive basic common sense. The reason that no one has anything positive to say about any of them, is that they spout nothing but divisive bias party talking points and derision of the other party. Other than Clinton (in his first year) NO other president has ever cut down the opposite party, and this one does so continuously. So, I realize that you pacifist liberals don't believe in self defense, but we defend ourselves when attacked. So, go cry on a liberal blog about how you don't get any respect, Rodney. No one cares for whiners here.

Come back and speak to use when you finally realize that Bush hasn't been in the White House for over six years and this clown has worn out his blame game. If he can't hack the job, then maybe he should have gone to work for SNL instead of running for a second term. At the very least, he should have listened to his advisers or fired them and hired some with some experience and successful records. If Reagan could pull off being the best president in history with his handicap, the surely Obama could learn from him and surround himself with some smart people. Some folks to cover his ignorance and lack of experience.

[Guest]

This is not a demeaning post, as you seem to feel most are.

It is actually a compliment to you when I say the Democratic party must be so very proud of you. Not many as consistent in their defense of this administration in every issue and more condemning of the Republican party.

You are consistent and please, that is not demeaning.

Being consistently ignorant is similar to repeating the same failure over and over again expecting a different outcome. And we know what that symbolizes.

[Guest]

This is not a demeaning post, as you seem to feel most are.

It is actually a compliment to you when I say the Democratic party must be so very proud of you. Not many as consistent in their defense of this administration in every issue and more condemning of the Republican party.

You are consistent and please, that is not demeaning.

In addition, I will also compliment his ability to just move on.

He oft times uses revisionist history by leaving things out or adding things, and when he is reminded of that, he just moves on as if it never happens.

He thinks all posts to him are demeaning yet he never apologizes for his mis use of facts. I suppose he thinks people just forget it.

[Guest]

The national debt at the time of Obama's inauguration was around $11 triilion. When Obama leaves office it will be around $19 trillion. This is not double - check your math! G. W. Bush came closer to doubling the debt during his 2 terms (from 5.5 trillion to 11 trillion). And Bill Clinton had NO debt during 4 years of his term; you don't have to go back to the 50's to see that. Check your facts before posting please!

[Guest]

The national debt at the time of Obama's inauguration was around $11 triilion. When Obama leaves office it will be around $19 trillion. This is not double - check your math! G. W. Bush came closer to doubling the debt during his 2 terms (from 5.5 trillion to 11 trillion). And Bill Clinton had NO debt during 4 years of his term; you don't have to go back to the 50's to see that. Check your facts before posting please!

There you go again, making up your own version of facts. Not true, the public debt owed on Jan 20, 2009 was $6,307,310,739,681.66. Today's public debt is: $13,378,216,906,933.97. That is more than double and we still have another year to go.

These are figures taken from TreasuryDirect.gov today.

The national debt was not $11 trillion.

[Guest]

There you go again, making up your own version of facts. Not true, the public debt owed on Jan 20, 2009 was $6,307,310,739,681.66. Today's public debt is: $13,378,216,906,933.97. That is more than double and we still have another year to go.

These are figures taken from TreasuryDirect.gov today.

The national debt was not $11 trillion.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what website he got that 11 Trillion from, but we will never know.

[Guest]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what website he got that 11 Trillion from, but we will never know.

He will ignore that part and come up with a new distortion that he picked up on some liberal blog. He doesn't bother to check it out to see if it is a valid fact. Perhaps a new attack using climate control or something like that.

[Guest]

Wouldn't it be interesting to know what website he got that 11 Trillion from, but we will never know.
Got it from Sean Hannity show.

[Guest]

What is the intent?

Sounds like some trying to fine tune a watermellon!!!

The debt is up significantly during Obama's reign, YES or NO?

YES!

[Guest]

Got it from Sean Hannity show.

Most people who want to post SERIOUSLY, will check and double check before posting, and then supply a link to validate.

Just saying. It is better to do that. Lest, as always happens to you, have your supposed "facts" be slammed back at you.

The trolls just say stuff and move on, and they are never taken seriously unless there is a discussion on how to rid the forum of them.

Exchanging information and views is what this is about, but spend time making sure you got it right.

I will suggest that you NEVER use a talking head as a source.