Will the Federal Debt Sink Obama

[marshabar1]

Just two weeks ago, President Barack Obama was riding high after authorizing a U.S. raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Since then, the president has enjoyed a spike in his approval ratings and some immediately suggested after the raid that the successful operation clinched reelection for him.

But Fox News senior contributor Brit Hume disagrees. During the “Fox News Sunday” online “Panel Plus” segment on Sunday, Hume suggested that Obama get on board with at least one of the current proposals put forth to address the federal debt. But he also noted the opposition he would face from his own party if he did so.

“If the president were to get behind a program like Paul Ryan’s or his own bipartisan debt commission, there would be a revolt within his own ranks,” Hume said. “People don’t understand how deeply Democrats believe in these programs and think their growth is a good thing. It should be encouraged and you ought to raise taxes and cut defense to pay for it. That’s what they believe.”

Hume said this isn’t the kind of disagreement that would be resolved easily.

“This is the deepest fault line – one of the deepest fault lines in American politics we’re talking about here and to expect that everybody would easily come to agreement – that seems to me is naïve,” Hume said. “It’s not to say that it won’t happen. I think President Obama probably recognizes it.”

dailycaller.com/2011/05/16/brit-hume-warns-obama-is-toast-if-current-conditions-persist/#ixzz1MdrQ2rNH


Barack's been between a rock and a hard place for his entire tenure in office. And it will continue. He though somehow he could magically be all things to all people. Doesn't work.

[ladylove]

There are so many ways to sink Obama besides the debt... there's unemployment, inflation, sinking home values, foreclosures, rising poverty, gas prices, and any number of foreign policies faux pas... not to mention the lies about everything like health care!

[jarhead1976]

I am with ladylove. His broken promises and lies will be his downfall.

[fairlycrazy23]

May 17, 2011 15:34:26 GMT -5 @ladylove said:

there's unemployment, inflation, sinking home values, foreclosures, rising poverty, gas prices

All of this is because of government in one way or another, it certainly didn't start with Obama, but he will get the blame come election time if these items haven't improved significantly.

[deziloooooo]

May 17, 2011 15:05:30 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

Just two weeks ago, President Barack Obama was riding high after authorizing a U.S. raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Since then, the president has enjoyed a spike in his approval ratings and some immediately suggested after the raid that the successful operation clinched reelection for him.

But Fox News senior contributor Brit Hume disagrees. During the “Fox News Sunday” online “Panel Plus” segment on Sunday, Hume suggested that Obama get on board with at least one of the current proposals put forth to address the federal debt. But he also noted the opposition he would face from his own party if he did so.

“If the president were to get behind a program like Paul Ryan’s or his own bipartisan debt commission, there would be a revolt within his own ranks,” Hume said. “People don’t understand how deeply Democrats believe in these programs and think their growth is a good thing. It should be encouraged and you ought to raise taxes and cut defense to pay for it. That’s what they believe.”

Hume said this isn’t the kind of disagreement that would be resolved easily.

“This is the deepest fault line – one of the deepest fault lines in American politics we’re talking about here and to expect that everybody would easily come to agreement – that seems to me is naïve,” Hume said. “It’s not to say that it won’t happen. I think President Obama probably recognizes it.”

dailycaller.com/2011/05/16/brit-hume-warns-obama-is-toast-if-current-conditions-persist/#ixzz1MdrQ2rNH


Barack's been between a rock and a hard place for his entire tenure in office. And it will continue. He though somehow he could magically be all things to all people. Doesn't work.

----------------------------------------------------
"If the president were to get behind a program like Paul Ryan’s or his own bipartisan debt commission, there would be a revolt within his own ranks,”
-----------------------------------------------------------

To accept all ther yadding and ideas verbatem, mentioned above, it is probably correct, however the author and the others who are mentioned , their ideas, are not the POTUS who has to balance wants, desires against realities, that's the difference between the two sides, those in the chair in that small office, and those outside the office , yadding their ideas through the closed d

This is the way of all POTUS who sit in that chair, no matter who they have been, one has to balance the realities and what is possible, and the other has no responsibilities at all as to the consequences of their actions.

Thus you get what we have here, predictions of and lots of yadding, because those who yadda, really are not going to have to worry about the consequences of what they are yadding about.

That is why they are going through all the negotiations right now, with the parties with the potus, with the VP with leaders of both sides, to come to a consensus that they can live with , the practicle of the yadda from all the ones who are putting through their solutions, including the two specified above, just two of many with ideas. The way our system works actually.

[ty]

With the missing 110 billion from the stimulus package, he's going to be just fine and dandy walking away with that piggy bank.

[ladylove]

May 17, 2011 15:40:23 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

May 17, 2011 15:34:26 GMT -5 @ladylove said:

there's unemployment, inflation, sinking home values, foreclosures, rising poverty, gas prices

All of this is because of government in one way or another, it certainly didn't start with Obama, but he will get the blame come election time if these items haven't improved significantly.

Mole didn't start with him but he said he would fix it declared emergency after emergency to push his outrageous spending bills through and the result... prolonging the pain and bankrupting the nation! He has to own up to it!

[ty]

May 17, 2011 15:57:30 GMT -5 @ladylove said:

May 17, 2011 15:40:23 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

All of this is because of government in one way or another, it certainly didn't start with Obama, but he will get the blame come election time if these items haven't improved significantly.

Mole didn't start with him but he said he would fix it declared emergency after emergency to push his outrageous spending bills through and the result... prolonging the pain and bankrupting the nation! He has to own up to it!

Haven't you heard. It's Bush's fault for him ruining and tanking the country. He came into office with the mess Bush mad, and then he decided to make a bigger mess so he can blame Bush some more. Don't you juss luv politics and stupid men in the Whitehouse.

[deziloooooo]

Actually, he's not stupid, he's very bright , possible we need less bright ..don't think Harry was that bright, average but some how knew what to do, granted , left office with just about the lowest approval ever, but then again what did the populace really know.

[lakhota]

[formerexpat]

A President is rarely in control of spending, except when he's got a super majority and can push his agenda in all chambers without any negotiation with the other side of the aisle.

Obama had the perfect opportunity to give people hope and the change that they actually wanted when they elected them; the hope and change that he promised them on the campaign trail.

Now, people only have change left in their pockets while they struggle to pay their bills instead. He will be a 1 term president.

Lahokta - your picture isn't accurate when using actual numbers: www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The debt has already increased about 42% under Obama. Minor differences in time since these years go with the budget year. Looks like Bush was up 77%.

Another way to look at it:

Clinton = +$1.6 trillion, or $200bn per year
Bush = +4.35 trillion, or $544bn per year
Obama = +4.18 trillion [as of now since we hit the debt ceiling], or $1,670 billion [$1.67 TRILLION PER YEAR]

Another $2.5 trillion in the next year and a half and Obama will have added over $6.5 trillion to the debt during his four year stay in the WH...not even counting the obligations he has added for the country in later years.

Put another way, federal receipts were about $2 trillion a year and Obama has spent nearly 80 cents more per dollar that has been brought in for a full 4 years once he is out of office.

How would that work in your household?

[marshabar1]

I think actually the fact Obama refuses to "own" anything will defeat him. He ultimately couldn't even own Osama's death by releasing the least gory of the photos which Congressman Lamborn, who has seen the photos, has said would be perfectly appropriate and helpful. But he can't upset Muslims so he won't do it. Can't work on the economy because his lefties won't like it. Can't stop the growth of government because the lefties and unions won't like it. Can't do anything because somebody won't like it. Anybody suppose he can levitate through this next election with no reference whatsoever to reality like he did last time?

[dancinmama]

There are so many problems in the country right now, I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Obama is re-elected. I'm not even sure that the $1B that he plans to raise for his re-election campaign will help him.

He can't use "hope and change" anymore. I can't wait to hear what he comes up with.

[ed1066]

May 17, 2011 22:07:47 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

I think actually the fact Obama refuses to "own" anything will defeat him. He ultimately couldn't even own Osama's death by releasing the least gory of the photos which Congressman Lamborn, who has seen the photos, has said would be perfectly appropriate and helpful. But he can't upset Muslims so he won't do it. Can't work on the economy because his lefties won't like it. Can't stop the growth of government because the lefties and unions won't like it. Can't do anything because somebody won't like it. Anybody suppose he can levitate through this next election with no reference whatsoever to reality like he did last time?

I don't think so. He will have to run on his record this time. Now we know that the blind sheep who worship him as a deity will vote for him no matter what. And the welfare junky, victim demographic who need government to live day to day will go for Obama, of course (as long as he promises to keep stealing from us to support them). But I don't think it's enough...

[ladylove]

May 17, 2011 18:31:09 GMT -5 @lakhota said:

16% LOL!!! Where did you get those numbers?? The current debt attributable to Obama is 5 trillion the total debt when Bush left was about 10 trillion even under the most beneficial view of the numbers Obama debt is at least 40% greater! Remember Obama "accomplished" this in just 2 years!!! Imagine what he'll do in 8!!! Don't forget his health care hasn't kicked in yet... if that stands it will bankrupt America!!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

“If the president were to get behind a program like Paul Ryan’s or his own bipartisan debt commission, there would be a revolt within his own ranks,” Hume said. “People don’t understand how deeply Democrats believe in these programs and think their growth is a good thing. It should be encouraged and you ought to raise taxes and cut defense to pay for it. That’s what they believe.”

I used to think this described only a fringe 20% or so of liberal Democrats. It's clear to me now that Hume is right. As such, there is effectively no more Democratic Party.

November 2010 was just the appetizer. Democrats should brace themselves for national elections just as devastating, or worse.

Current projections have Republicans with 67 Senate seats. Last time the projection was for Republicans to pick up 40 seats in the house and 4 or 5 Senate Seats. Just so you know.

[Deleted]

To me it breaks down something like this (numbers made up).
About 20% of all Democrats & Republicans will vote the party line no matter what happens (they are true believers & would vote straight ticket even if the guy running killed someone). Of the 80% left of each party probably 50% of those will more than likely vote for that party. That leaves 30% that "might" swing to the other party if they really hate the guy running in their party or really like the guy running in the other party.

Then you have a good size part of the population that vote for the person (they don't vote for a party).

It's hard to predict elections because of the different swings that voters can take. Then you add to that the electoral college & that almost makes it easier EXCEPT in a few key states or an upset.

I'm sure that most of the liberals posting here think that President Obama is a shoe in because of all that he has achieved. I'm also sure that most of the conservatives posting here think that most everyone has seen what he has done & will vote against him. The truth doesn't lie somewhere in between like in most things, the truth just depends on your point of view.
My "guess" is that the moderate democrats & a large amount of those independents will swing against President Obama & whoever runs against him will get 60% of the vote. (Assuming that he is running against someone exceptable).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Post #9 is completely false. Completely. It's not even remotely correct. The LARGEST annual deficit under George W. Bush was $187 billion. That was less than the Obama deficit JUST for the month of February.

The FACT is that President Obama has spent more than ALL previous Presidents COMBINED from George Washington to George W. Bush. Obama has turned Bush annual deficits into MONTHLY deficits.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oh, I see...the source for the fake deficit chart is this craptastic little piece of shit website: www.bartcop.com/

[sesfw]

LOL ........... it's easy to make a chart say anything you want it to by using your imagination and a computer.

[fairlycrazy23]

It doesn't really matter who caused it, whether it was before his administration or during, Obama should address it since he is the current President.

Of course it is difficult to reduce the budget when you want to expand the size and scope of the government, there isn't enough money in defense and there isn't enough untaxed rich.

[deziloooooo]

May 17, 2011 21:35:40 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

A President is rarely in control of spending, except when he's got a super majority and can push his agenda in all chambers without any negotiation with the other side of the aisle.

Obama had the perfect opportunity to give people hope and the change that they actually wanted when they elected them; the hope and change that he promised them on the campaign trail.

Now, people only have change left in their pockets while they struggle to pay their bills instead. He will be a 1 term president.

Lahokta - your picture isn't accurate when using actual numbers: www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The debt has already increased about 42% under Obama. Minor differences in time since these years go with the budget year. Looks like Bush was up 77%.

Another way to look at it:

Clinton = +$1.6 trillion, or $200bn per year
Bush = +4.35 trillion, or $544bn per year
Obama = +4.18 trillion [as of now since we hit the debt ceiling], or $1,670 billion [$1.67 TRILLION PER YEAR]

Another $2.5 trillion in the next year and a half and Obama will have added over $6.5 trillion to the debt during his four year stay in the WH...not even counting the obligations he has added for the country in later years.

Put another way, federal receipts were about $2 trillion a year and Obama has spent nearly 80 cents more per dollar that has been brought in for a full 4 years once he is out of office.

How would that work in your household?

He had wars he inherited[Not financed}, banking going down the tubes, same with auto industry, a recession boardering on depression, unemployment and lay offs because of above problems...so he spent a few bucks to kick start, who knew it was so bad the kick didn't start like planned, and if he did not do the stimulus your saying it would have been better, and possible we should have let the banks go under, and if he said we won in Afghanistan, brought the troops home, how many would have cheered here, be honest, and if the auto had gone under, no complaints...and if the recession had turned into a depression, you all would have said what?

[deziloooooo]

May 18, 2011 9:27:57 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

To me it breaks down something like this (numbers made up).
About 20% of all Democrats & Republicans will vote the party line no matter what happens (they are true believers & would vote straight ticket even if the guy running killed someone). Of the 80% left of each party probably 50% of those will more than likely vote for that party. That leaves 30% that "might" swing to the other party if they really hate the guy running in their party or really like the guy running in the other party.

Then you have a good size part of the population that vote for the person (they don't vote for a party).

It's hard to predict elections because of the different swings that voters can take. Then you add to that the electoral college & that almost makes it easier EXCEPT in a few key states or an upset.

I'm sure that most of the liberals posting here think that President Obama is a shoe in because of all that he has achieved. I'm also sure that most of the conservatives posting here think that most everyone has seen what he has done & will vote against him. The truth doesn't lie somewhere in between like in most things, the truth just depends on your point of view.
My "guess" is that the moderate democrats & a large amount of those independents will swing against President Obama & whoever runs against him will get 60% of the vote. (Assuming that he is running against someone exceptable).

Not that it means squat, but I am a moderate democrate and so far, there is no one close to him that i would consuider over him, and yep, over all, he's done ok...the new tea people sure aren't impressing me, and the dems in Congress aren't either..but the pres..he seems not that bad.

Considering who and what he has to work with.

As we get some candidates besides him, we'll see.