True but the 2009 spike was all on Bush as it was his budget.

True, but the last two years of the Bush Presidency the Budget was controlled by an Dem House and Senate. Then the first two years of the Obama Administration the Dems also controlled the House and Senate. For the next four years of President Obama's term the Dems controlled the Senate while the GOP controlled the House. These last two years of President Obama's time in office have seen GOP control over both the House and the Senate. According to RP's Graph that's when the biggest decreases in spending have occurred.

 

It could be a coincidence that the biggest decreases in spending during Clinton, W and Obama Presidencies have all occurred when the GOP was in control of both the House and the Senate and some of the biggest increases in spending happened when the Democrats had control of the House and Senate.

I'm not really good at math but here is the money we have went in the hole under Obama in millions of dollars.

Only with the US Government's twisted way of doing things could increasing the deficit by "only" $600 billion in one year be considered a good thing...

True, but the last two years of the Bush Presidency the Budget was controlled by an Dem House and Senate. Then the first two years of the Obama Administration the Dems also controlled the House and Senate. For the next four years of President Obama's term the Dems controlled the Senate while the GOP controlled the House. These last two years of President Obama's time in office have seen GOP control over both the House and the Senate. According to RP's Graph that's when the biggest decreases in spending have occurred.

 

It could be a coincidence that the biggest decreases in spending during Clinton, W and Obama Presidencies have all occurred when the GOP was in control of both the House and the Senate and some of the biggest increases in spending happened when the Democrats had control of the House and Senate.

I will just assume you are saying this in jest:lol2:

As stated before Presidents get too much credit and blame on the economy - usually.

 

The problem with the early Obama period is the disconnect in spending and revenue. In 2009 revenue went down - hard since the 'recession' was more of a mini-depression. But spending - spiked up. This disconnect was unique and the fact that that this disconnect has not returned to near 'normal' (not that normal is even good) the last year or so is what has driven the DEBT so high - even with 'reducing deficits'.

 

Praising this President for 'reducing deficits' (that are projected to rise in the out years) is like praising the Captain of the Titanic for the water coming in slower. The damage was done in 2009 through 2012. And that damage may not be recoverable.

 

INTEREST on the debt becomes more and more and more...and more of the budget in the out years - forever at this point. That is a problem. Also medicaid - that is 'on budget', unlike the majority of social security grows and grows ... and grows in the out years. They squeezed the military budget for all its worth. But it is now near normal inflation adjusted rates. i.e. the spike in military spending is now back to a run-out baseline.

 

So there is nothing left...no other department has money to steal for the interest payments or medicare. Education, Justice, Interior....all small potatoes.

 

The ponzi game end is getting near.

If the deficit were to rise then many of you would hang it on the president, so give the man some credit. His job has been tough considering the lingering bills and bailouts from the Bush admin. As far as the deficit is concerned, he probably tried to implement Obamacare too soon, but I'm certain it would not have passed later.

Bottom line the deficit is increasing. The GROWTH is decreasing.

 

Bottom Line, the NATIONAL DEBT is GROWING, the DEFICIT which contributes to the national debt has SHRUNK.

If the deficit were to rise then many of you would hang it on the president, so give the man some credit. His job has been tough considering the lingering bills and bailouts from the Bush admin. As far as the deficit is concerned, he probably tried to implement Obamacare too soon, but I'm certain it would not have passed later.

 

I get it, Bush's fault for 7 years of deficits. Riiiiiight! He didn't up the ante when he took office. Unbelievable.

As stated before Presidents get too much credit and blame on the economy - usually.

 

The problem with the early Obama period is the disconnect in spending and revenue. In 2009 revenue went down - hard since the 'recession' was more of a mini-depression. But spending - spiked up. This disconnect was unique and the fact that that this disconnect has not returned to near 'normal' (not that normal is even good) the last year or so is what has driven the DEBT so high - even with 'reducing deficits'.

 

Praising this President for 'reducing deficits' (that are projected to rise in the out years) is like praising the Captain of the Titanic for the water coming in slower. The damage was done in 2009 through 2012. And that damage may not be recoverable.

 

INTEREST on the debt becomes more and more and more...and more of the budget in the out years - forever at this point. That is a problem. Also medicaid - that is 'on budget', unlike the majority of social security grows and grows ... and grows in the out years. They squeezed the military budget for all its worth. But it is now near normal inflation adjusted rates. i.e. the spike in military spending is now back to a run-out baseline.

 

So there is nothing left...no other department has money to steal for the interest payments or medicare. Education, Justice, Interior....all small potatoes.

 

The ponzi game end is getting near.

 

Solid post BG.

 

I've been saying for years when a president hangs his hat on a booming economy it's nothing more than timing.

I get it, Bush's fault for 7 years of deficits. Riiiiiight! He didn't up the ante when he took office. Unbelievable.

 

You obviously didn't read my post. I said he implemented Obamacare too soon which would be "upping the ante," but the spending from the Bush years was still on the books when Obama took office. The spending Obama is doing will be there for this president for a while.

You obviously didn't read my post. I said he implemented Obamacare too soon which would be "upping the ante," but the spending from the Bush years was still on the books when Obama took office. The spending Obama is doing will be there for this president for a while.

 

If I misinterpreted your post I apologize. However your comment about lingering bills and bailouts appeared to ignore that not only did Obama continue those policies, he put them on steroids. He owns that just as Bush owns implementing them. Obamacare is not his only contribution to the debt.

If I misinterpreted your post I apologize. However your comment about lingering bills and bailouts appeared to ignore that not only did Obama continue those policies, he put them on steroids. He owns that just as Bush owns implementing them. Obamacare is not his only contribution to the debt.

 

Since he took office Obama has done more to decrease the deficit than increase, which is the opposite of what he inherited while implementing a costly incomplete national healthcare system.

 

Whoever is elected I pray they attempt to keep things headed in this direction as far as the deficit is concerned. Our country can't take a series of costly conflicts and bailouts for a good while.

The Administration and the Democratically controlled congress went on a super spending spree the first two years. Under the guis of 'stimulus' they made payoffs those they owed. Even though the situation was situation was so bad that social security receipts went down for the first time ever since the program was started.

 

They did nothing about the deficet and the deep deficiet were directly the result of policies backed by the adminstration and one party Congress.

 

Without very unpopular restructuring of the medicare/medicaid there is no fix in the future. Its the problem.