Dude, you do realize that when the bottom fell out it was an inherited bottom, don't you? You can't be that naive. Obama's been playing defense since he got into office.
blame it on the alll---cocaine and stripppppers <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FzrBurlJUNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Atlantic has a nice rundown of the NYT chart above. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/ It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts. An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years that during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock. The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why we call them "shocks." Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it ("deficits don't matter" etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position. After the jump, from a previous "The Chart That Should..." positing, an illustration of the respective roles of external shock and deliberate policy change in creating the deficit.
Perfect illustration of the Republican simpleton point of view right here. Your side has absolutely no answers to any of the real problems in this country, so your only alternative, in order to stay relevant, is to relentlessly criticize the other side in order to make the Republicans look like they are the party that is more capable of governing. (LOL) It's just funny how the Republicans in this forum, and especially in this thread, don't even bother, or probably just aren't capable of, making well-thought out posts and just resort to posting one-liners about Obama sucking or calling the author of an article about the deficit a "turd." gwaynco & rockets pride: the next intelligent post that either of you actually make in this forum will be your first.
George W. Bush ran up the deficit. George W. Bush was a Republican. Naturally, why should I trust the Republicans when it comes to deficits?
No, obama is polarized by the conservative crowd, and I do suspect that, unlike Clinton, who the republicans could never win against since clinton was such a masterful politician that even their own constituents rallied behind like sheep, obama's race as a black man makes him an easier target for folks who still hold biases. Carter was ineffective because he was a terrible politician, obama's ineffectiveness is due to his race.
Please post the graphic of Bush's debt any time somebody argues that Obama owns all of the debt. Please post the voting records of House Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues. Please keep highlighting how the richest people in this country pay shockingly-low tax rates. Unfortunately, no matter how it enrages, this won't matter. The echo chamber of the Internet means that "slogan conservatives" will never have to acknowledge fact. What they say, to them, is fact. When you willingly ignore all sides of issues and only ingest one, what you hear becomes your reality.
And unemployment and the national debt were both in good shape when the last Republican president left office, right?
Congratulations, you got me to bite only to switch focus. Bush is responsible for the national debt. Period! Not if you want to discuss the similarities between Obama and Carter. One is racial and one is being plain bad as a politician. That is why your side had a big hullabaloo about Obama's birth certificate. Because, approval ratings or lack thereof, gets things done.
While I do agree some of his issues are due to race, he has also been a bad politician. He always trying to do this whole bipartisan BS. He ran on a platform of change. He was the most liberal senator and he should have used that as an edict to push his agenda. He did not do that and now he looks like a weak and ineffective leader. I would like like for him to come on life TV say F u john Boehner and proceed to beat his ass down.
We are not even talking about issues here. Good grief. Stay on point. We are discussing character assassination, which has been an effective strategy against obama since he "looks" different. He talk funny. And what's that's translated into is a loss in approval ratings and it helped to win seats for the republicans. This is why Clinton will go down as one of the greatest politicians because of his Teflon Don handling of all situations that came his way.
What's translated into approval ratings is the unemployment rate above 9%. Yes, there is over-the-top criticism of him, but that's politics.
