I am typing from an IPad, so I will be brief. The U.S. is 16 trillion dollars in debt, and that debt will soon grow by leaps and bounds with the Baby Boomer generation retiring and collecting Social Security. With that in mind, can we vote out the guy who just spent the nation six trillion dollars into debt?
Note: Below are my responses to people's comments on this thread thus far done in a question and response style.
1. How fast has the debt grown? The national debt was ten trillion when President Obama took office. It is over sixteen trillion now. 2. Didn't President Obama have to spend six trillion dollars to save the economy? The Obama administration predicted that if his stimulus package was not passed, the unemployment rate would max out at the ridiculously high percentage of 8.5%. With the stimulus package, the unemployment rate was supposed to stay underneath 7%. Despite trillions being spent to fix the economy, unemployment exceeded 10%. If anything, the President's spending programs hurt the economy. 3. Wasn't President Bush the one who racked up debt? Partially. President Bush added five trillion dollars of debt in eight years, and Democrats screamed that his spending was out of control. They were right. President Obama created six trillion dollars of debt in three and a half years, yet Democrats say nothing. Let's be consistent. It is bad to bankrupt the country regardless of which side of the aisle you prefer. |
4. Don't we actually owe more than sixteen trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. If you add unfunded liabilities (the money the U.S. must soon pay for social security beneifts, military pensions, and medicare costs) to the equation, then we actually owe sixty-nine trillion dollars. Theoretically, those programs could be changed to pay less out in benefits which would decrease our debt, but President Obama has made no efforts to decrease benefits.
5. Since President Bush did not include the cost of the wars in his budget, isn't the increase in President Obama's spending just due to the true cost of Bush's War on Terror?
No. The funding for the War on Terror went through congress and was on the books. You have been misinformed.
Also, the total cost of the war throughout President Bush's term was 850 billion, less than one trillion dollars. Even if the books were cooked and President Obama's numbers only reflect the true cost of the war, that still does not justify one-sixth of his addition to the debt.
Finally, President Obama would still be and is responsible for continuing to wage a war we cannot afford.
6. Shouldn't President Obama be excused for his debt spending because he wants to increase taxes to cover the cost?
No. President might have a plan in mind for raising money in the future, but that does not excuse him overspending in the present.
Let's say a couple wanted a lot of nice things, and over the process of eight years, they ended up collecting fifty thousand dollars worth of debt. They realize they need to fix things, but they are having a really hard time. In order to overcome their financial difficulties, they spend even more money. Within the next four years, they spend themselves sixty thousand more dollars into the hole. It appears that their financial program is not working, but they insist that they will be applying for better jobs which will pay more money, so for this reason, they have not been irresponsible for the past four years.
This is exactly what President Obama has done. His possible increase in future income does not make up for the unnecessary debt he has created today. If you do not already have a plan in place to pay for something, then do not buy it.
Furthermore, the Democrats had control over the U.S. Congress for the first two years of President Obama's term. President Obama could have raised taxes, but he continued to spend money the nation did not have to fund a failed program.
7. Doesn't a study by Brown University prove that President Bush kept two sets of books on the war and that the debt incurred by the war greatly exceeds the 850 billion mentioned earlier?
No. The Brown study does show that the long term cost of the war will be more like four trillion dollars by the time all the lifetime benefits are paid out to soldiers who fought in the war, but no federal debt, neither Bush nor Obama's, reflects the money that will be spent in future years. It only accounts for the money that has been spent thus far.
This study also assumes that the United States will indefinitely prop up Iraq's infrastructure.
8. Part of that debt was due to Bush's War on Terror. Isn't continuing the war the only moral thing to do?
I suppose that is up for debate. Personally, I think if the war was intrusive, immoral, and stupid in the first place, it is intrusive, immoral, and stupid to continue it, but there is a case to be made using the, "You break it. You bought it," line of reasoning. In response to that, I would say that nation building has rarely worked and assumes that other nations cannot succeed without the United States oversight which flirts with imperialism as far as I am concerned.
9. Isn't the overspending just due to the economy being worse than anybody imagined?
If we are going to be completely honest, there is no way of knowing how much better or worse things would be if President Obama's policies had not been enacted. What we do know that the same financial team that said the stimulus package would work said that the economy would naturally only have a peak unemployment of 8.5 percent. Either the President's stimulus hurt the job market, or the President's financial staff has no idea what they are doing. Neither of those options justify spending six trillion dollars in debt. In fact, that whole question is based on the idea that President Obama has no real understanding of the nation's financial realities.
10. Wasn't much of the debt that President Obama collected in his first year due to President Bush's bailout?
Yes, and if responsibility for the bailout lay only on the shoulders of Bush, then that would excuse about one-seventh of President Obama's debt spending. However, President Obama voted for that legislation, so he bears just as much responsibility as everyone else who helped to enact it.
11. Didn't Bush's tax cuts add to the deficit?
No, actually. In the years since the tax cuts, revenue has actually increased. The problem is that government expenditures increased much more.
Log in to comment