GOP Debunked: Obama did not create $5 trillion in new debt

[BigLouie]

OCTOBER 28, 2012BY: LOU COLAGIOVANNI

Republican pundits love to say that the national debt has increased by $5 trillion because of President Obama. Factually, that statement is simply untrue. Let's examine the evidence.

Of the alleged $5 trillion, $1.6 trillion is related to costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. These were costs George W. Bush intentionally hid from the budget, and that President Obama allowed to be calculated when he assumed office.

Note that Obama could have continued to hide the bill as Bush did, passing it along to his successor.

President Bush was able to manipulate funding for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars using special emergency authorization bills. He did this because, as you recall, the Democrats were attempting to defund the war legislatively.

The overall point is simple: Obama, as president, authorized not one cent of that $1.6 trillion to be spent.

It has been previously reported by marketwatch.com that President Obama increased overall government spending by a smaller margin than any modern president, all the way to President Eisenhower.

Rex Nutting at marketwatch clarifies:

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

Over $1.4 trillion was spent on interest payments caused by the already standing debt.

Knowing that, let's examine the GOP's argument.

They say President Obama has spent too much, but 32% of the total amount they claim has been spent is a direct result of Republican presidential policies, and previous spending.

President Obama is stuck paying the bill for the previous GOP administrations of Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush. President Clinton left with a surplus if you recall, and added nothing to our debt. This point has been discussed constantly, and was even visited by President Obama's former Press Secretary Jay Carney during a press gaggle.

It is not disputed that the national debt was $10 trillion before President Obama took office.

The interest that is paid on the debt today was created by the very same people who now are attempting to blame the cost of that interest on the president. Do not allow yourself to be fooled, the GOP is attempting to blame the president for something they caused.

Now our journey of $5 trillion has been twiddled down to $2 trillion.

Another piece of the puzzle is that the CBO projected because of the Bush Era Tax Cuts, our government lost over $1.6 trillion in projected revenue. Of course, these unpaid taxes were supposed to create jobs for the middle class. The tax cuts have been in place for over 10 years, one would think our nation would be swimming in jobs. Yet, friends, that is not the case.

If reasonable tax rates were in place that were similar to those used while President Clinton was in office -- America's fiscal outlook would be more optimistic.

This leaves only $400 billion to be unaccounted for, and surely the fervor about reckless spending can not be over that amount because in that regard there are many instances where the GOP is equally guilty, if not more culpable. For example, our nation is still paying for the wasteful Medicare part D plan. Passed in 2003 and enacted in 2006, it has been estimated to cost a staggering $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Others put a more conservative price of $8 trillion including former head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, David Walker.

$8 - $17 trillion in spending, and yet they say President Obama is the reckless spender? No matter how you look at the numbers, the GOP is guilty of at least one-and-a-half more spending, or three times as much spending. How can they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility?

The overall premise of the argument has now been debunked, and the truth is quite clear; 88% of the debt which the GOP blames on President Obama was not created as a consequence of his policies.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-...llion-new-debt

[WTF]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

OCTOBER 28, 2012BY: LOU COLAGIOVANNI

Republican pundits love to say that the national debt has increased by $5 trillion because of President Obama. Factually, that statement is simply untrue. Let's examine the evidence.

Of the alleged $5 trillion, $1.6 trillion is related to costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. These were costs George W. Bush intentionally hid from the budget, and that President Obama allowed to be calculated when he assumed office.

Note that Obama could have continued to hide the bill as Bush did, passing it along to his successor.

.



Over $1.4 trillion was spent on interest payments caused by the already standing debt.







Another piece of the puzzle is that the CBO projected because of the Bush Era Tax Cuts, our government lost over $1.6 trillion in projected revenue. Of course, these unpaid taxes were supposed to create jobs for the middle class. The tax cuts have been in place for over 10 years, one would think our nation would be swimming in jobs. Yet, friends, that is not the case.

If reasonable tax rates were in place that were similar to those used while President Clinton was in office -- America's fiscal outlook would be more optimistic.

. For example, our nation is still paying for the wasteful Medicare part D plan. Passed in 2003 and enacted in 2006, it has been estimated to cost a staggering $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Others put a more conservative price of $8 trillion including former head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, David Walker.



http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-...llion-new-debt

Our Tea Party friends will never understand this simple math problem. They do not even want yo acknowledge that part of the interest payment of our national debt should be assigned to Defense spending as they were the ones who borrowed the money.

We do have a spending problem. The Democratic side of the equation at least pays for their spending on their two major programs, SS and Medicare.

Does the GOP allocate enough taxes to pay for their pet?

This is where IB comes and brings the strawman about Defense being in the Constitution but never has he shown me where in the Constitution it says we can have the best standing defense in the world and nopt have to pay for it.

[markroxny]

This lie is one of the reasons Romney lost.

[Laz]

I will grant that both democrats and republicans have been irresponsible over the past 50 years and that has led to where we are today. There is plenty of blame to pass around. The important question now is what are they going to do to solve the problem. Raising taxes will not get all of the revenue they are projecting and it will increase demand on government services since it will depress economic activity. Continuing spending at the current levels is not sustainable. Cuts MUST happen but the government is continuing to say they will do it next year. When are we going to get to next year? Will it take a complete financial collapse for it to occur?

The problem I have with Obama is not that he caused the problem but that he is not doing anything to fix it. Simply raising taxes so that they can continue to be irresponsible is not the solution. When is he going to go through the budget line by line to eliminate spending that is not necessary or not the responsibility of the federal government? When are cameras going to be in these meeting so that the public can see who is representing their interests? Lets shine a light on all of the government so that the roaches run off and hide.

As for your analysis there are 3 omissions I see quickly. The first is that the cost of the tax cuts assumes that they did not assist in boosting economic activity which would have generated offsetting increases in revenue to the government. If that is considered the cost might be nothing and there could have possibly been a profit from them.

Second, the Clinton surplus was an illusion since it was using the social security surplus to cover the deficit spending. The other thing is that the surplus went away after the tech bubble burst and 9-11. Those were also Clinton legacies that Bush inherited. No one ever brings that up when they want to talk about Clinton's surplus.

And finally you should point out that deficit spending for presidents prior to Obama was hidden by the social security surplus. Obama has not had that luxury. If there was a surplus in any year it was not much.

[CuteOldGuy]

You're right, Louie. Obama didn't help create $5 trillion in new debt. It is over $6 trillion.

[Texas Contrarian]

It's obviously fair to say that Obama is not responsible for all of the debt accumulation of the last four years, since even if he had acted in a fiscally responsible manner it would have taken time to accomplish serious deficit reduction.

However...

Originally Posted by BigLouie

...It has been previously reported by marketwatch.com that President Obama increased overall government spending by a smaller margin than any modern president, all the way to President Eisenhower...

That's just ridiculous nonsense!

Rex Nutting's "analysis" -- and the narrative accompanying it -- was quickly debunked by multiple sources. It was simply not a serious piece of work. The claim that Obama did not call for, and bring about, large increases in federal government spending is laughable. Just look at how he added to (and continued) the spending blowout of FY2009.

Originally Posted by WTF

We do have a spending problem. The Democratic side of the equation at least pays for their spending on their two major programs, SS and Medicare.

Really?

Then perhaps you can explain the justification of the two percentage point payroll tax cut of two years ago, which is still in effect. (Obama called for it, and Republicans signed on, since in return the president agreed to extend the tax cuts for high income earners.)

And perhaps you can explain why these programs run deficits which will widen considerably over the next decade. Have you seen Obama propose anything even remotely resembling a plan for reform?

Both parties have become free lunch parties and aggressive tax-cutting parties. The main difference is that Republicans aggressively cut taxes on all income groups, while Democrats have attempted to restict the tax cuts to non-affluent households.

Although you may note the divergence in "fairness" of the two approaches, it's clear that in terms of the condition of the nation's fisc, there isn't all that much difference.

[Pharmaguy729]

To debunk market watch on how Obama has not increased government spending is quite easy. The Stimulus bill that was 787 billion or so was attached to a George Bush budget. Obama's "budgets" and I do that in quotation marks because he can't seem to pass one are graded on increases off of that last Bush budget which Obama had a massive part of making larger. As usual, the Zombies seem to forget that simple math point. So you all know. Bush's last budget went from Sept 2008-sept 2009. So O got all that free time to run it up. While I am not saying the Republicans are blameless in this, neither is Obama anywhere close to a sound manager of money.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

To debunk market watch on how Obama has not increased government spending is quite easy. The Stimulus bill that was 787 billion or so was attached to a George Bush budget. Obama's "budgets" and I do that in quotation marks because he can't seem to pass one are graded on increases off of that last Bush budget which Obama had a massive part of making larger. As usual, the Zombies seem to forget that simple math point. So you all know. Bush's last budget went from Sept 2008-sept 2009. So O got all that free time to run it up. While I am not saying the Republicans are blameless in this, neither is Obama anywhere close to a sound manager of money.

this president or any other president doesnt pass a budget ... congress passes budgets

zombies seem to forget that simple point

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CJ7

this president or any other president doesnt pass a budget ... congress passes budgets

zombies seem to forget that simple point

Yes, but presidents usually shape policy in a more than insignificant way, to say the least.

In early 2009, Obama called for a very large fiscal surge in a putative effort to mitigate the severity of the recession, although there's not a shred of evidence that such efforts have ever worked very well, or even produced results worth anywhere near the amount of added debt.

A very complaisant congress readily agreed to the massive spending binge, and compounded the problem by loading it with ineffective waste and political payoffs to favored constituencies.

Is that the sort of simple point that zombies miss?

[CJ7]

presidents propose, congress dispose

the last republican majority congress didnt pass a budget either

[Pharmaguy729]

And CJ7...the house has passed budgets but you senate majority leader has not presided over a budget pass in 4 years... He likes to keep up continuing resolutions to feed his Zombies.... All under direction of the White House... Or you could look at Obamas proposed budgets which have yet to garner a single yes vote in the senate.....

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

And CJ7...the house has passed budgets but you senate majority leader has not presided over a budget pass in 4 years... He likes to keep up continuing resolutions to feed his Zombies.... All under direction of the White House... Or you could look at Obamas proposed budgets which have yet to garner a single yes vote in the senate.....

reading your posts Iam assuming youre intelligent enough to answer your own question even though its more of a talking point than question given the way the the floor called for a vote ... maybe not.

same scenario, the current senate passed the new tax cuts legislation yet the house refuses to vote on the measure ... wonder why?

gee, lemme think ??????

[cptjohnstone]

still blaming Bush, when does this stop?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

still blaming Bush, when does this stop?

when his actions as president stop having a direct effect on the entire country

[CuteOldGuy]

Which, according to the Obamatron, will never happen. Thanks for dutifully supporting and transmitting the message of the Obamatron in Chicago, CBJ7! Beats the hell out of having to think for yourself, doesn't it?