Obama Can't Remember How Much the Debt Is.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-letterman-obama-says-he-cant-remember-the-national-debt/article/2508443

Quote

In his interview with David Letterman last night, President Obama admitted that he didn’t know the amount of the national debt.

“Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?” asked Letterman.

“I don’t remember what the number was precisely,” responded Obama.

The national debt, of course, was $10 trillion when President Obama took office, but is now currently at 16 trillion and counting.

A President who can't even remember how much money we owe.

But, hey, let's focus on more important thing like whether a candidate knows if airplane windows can be opened.

[beowulf 1]

The deficit and overall debt doesn't seem to be much of a political issue in this election. I think many think that the debt size doesn't matter. I think it does matter and servicing the debt takes up more and more of the budget, which increases pressure on everything else like SS and Medicare, which are underfunded.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

A President who can't even remember how much money we owe.

Stunning....

We are all engines of karma

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-letterman-obama-says-he-cant-remember-the-national-debt/article/2508443

Quote

In his interview with David Letterman last night, President Obama admitted that he didn’t know the amount of the national debt.

“Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?” asked Letterman.

“I don’t remember what the number was precisely,” responded Obama.

The national debt, of course, was $10 trillion when President Obama took office, but is now currently at 16 trillion and counting.

A President who can't even remember how much money we owe.

But, hey, let's focus on more important thing like whether a candidate knows if airplane windows can be opened.

Standby, soon one of our well posted liberal apologists will have a defensive argument. It will be sophomoric in context and it will obfuscate the issue.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,991]

At least he knows the US isn't a foreign country! (while we're ignoring issues)

[rushmc 23]

Just another bump in the road

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Adding to the national debt is never the problem of a sitting politician. Why remember what the debt is if you don't intend to do anything about it? It's the next president's problem. Or the one after or the one after that.

What does he care? He won't need to pay it off?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Adding to the national debt is never the problem of a sitting politician. Why remember what the debt is if you don't intend to do anything about it? It's the next president's problem. Or the one after or the one after that.

What does he care? He won't need to pay it off?

Ahhhhhhhhh does any on remember who is actually responsible for the depth? Do any of you remember when Obama was sworn in and what the depth was the day before that???????????

Really who are you guys trying to fool other than your selves?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Ahhhhhhhhh does any on remember who is actually responsible for the depth?

Yes. Congress. How many times have I written on here that I don't blame Obama for it. Or Bush. Or Clinton. Or Bush. Or Reagan. Because neither can spend a penny that Congress doesn't authorize.

It seriously is NOT Obama's problem. Sure, he can propose spending but Congress can say no. He hasn't chosen to propose anything that will cut the debt, but again, it's not his problem so I don't blame him. Tough choices will come down the line.

Note: he didn't support the recommendations of his own debt commission. Congress didn't, either, so it's a wash.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[beowulf 1]

You are right in that Congress is responsible, but it should be the President's responsibility to bring it up and make it a priority. I don't think it's been given the attention that it deserves. They just keep pushing it out into the future and avoiding having to deal with it. No one wants to cut spending or raise taxes, so they just raise the debt ceiling and print more money.

[Darius11 12]

The biggest issue BY FAR is the amount of money that is involved in our military industrial complex.
Simple as that people make trillions of dollars off of war and A war effort.

Until half of each of our tax dollars stops going to offence oh wait defense then we are fucked.

Nothing no mistakes in finances not the bailouts (which I don’t agree with) none of that shit means anything when you consider the cost of a war.

And when there is a war guess what poor people die the sheep wave flags, and the fuckers responsible make trillions.

Until we realize the actual cause of the issues and stop arguing about stupid talking points that’s feed to us no problem will be solved.

The system is fucked and needs to be burned to the ground and reengineered. It is simply so corrupt that it can not fix it self.

Quote

"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787[2]

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The biggest issue BY FAR is the amount of money that is involved in our military industrial complex.

That's a subjective judgment. Let's review the numbers from the 2013 budget proposal:
Department of Defense - $672.9 billion
I'll add VA to that, too - $139.7 billion ($60 billion of which is discretionary)
Department of HHS (Medicare, Medicaid) - $940.9 billion
Social Security - $882.7 billion
Debt servicing - $246 billion

So, out of total outlays of $3.8 trillion, 48% comes from welfare. Note - Social Security and Medicare are growing quickly and are "mandatory spending." Add debt servicing (another growing mandatory number) and we've got 54% of federal spending.

Put Defense and VA and we've got 76% of the budget.

Point? Defense plus VA is not as much as Social Security or Medicare.

There are some huge numbers out there. None bigger than HHS and Social Security. Defense spending should be cut, too, but nearly all Defense spending is "discretionary." Not so with Medicare and Social Security, which is why they are such massive issues. Those two programs will themselves soak up 80% of all revenues in the next decade.

Those are the two that most people fear most. But nobody (not even Ryan) is willing to fix them. It will put them out of a job.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[beowulf 1]

The debt servicing is not a static number. The debt is continually rising and the interest rate is at a low percentage for now. The interest rate can and will go up in the future. My point is that this will only go down when the over all debt decreases and the interest rate remains the same or decreases otherwise the interest payment amount will rise as the US Gov continues to borrow more and more money. If and when the interest rates go up the debt servicing amount will increase sharply.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

http://washingtonexaminer.com/on-letterman-obama-says-he-cant-remember-the-national-debt/article/2508443

Quote

In his interview with David Letterman last night, President Obama admitted that he didn’t know the amount of the national debt.

“Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?” asked Letterman.

“I don’t remember what the number was precisely,” responded Obama.

The national debt, of course, was $10 trillion when President Obama took office, but is now currently at 16 trillion and counting.

A President who can't even remember how much money we owe.

But, hey, let's focus on more important thing like whether a candidate knows if airplane windows can be opened.

Does anyone on the right remember the budget trickery conducted by the Bush administration?

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not on budget. This effectively hid the true costs of the wars. One of the first things that the Obama administration did was put the wars back on the budget. This action is a fiscally responsible decision that should be supported whole heartedly by conservatives and the Republican party. Hiding the costs through deception was allowed to occur, and is not occurring any more.

It is exceptionally hypocritical for right wing conservatives to harp about the "debt rung up" by an administration that is not being deliberately deceptive when it comes to wars that cost in the trillions. Your bald faced lies and outright dishonesty are shameful.

WRT the original topic, it is ludicrous to expect that Obama would have on hand the amount of the national debt. That number is useless in the context of what he really has to worry about.

The facts are that the national debt is of great concern to right wing conservatives only when a Democratic administration is in office. When a Republican administration is in office, what happened recently is quite simple -

1. The Bush Administration started two expensive wars, without paying for them AT ALL.

2. The Bush Administration put the cost of these wars off budget. That was of no concern at all to right wing conservatives, at the time. It still isn't.

3. The Bush Administration initated "temporary" huge tax cuts on the basis of the budget surplus set up by the Clinton administration. These tax cuts were set up to expire after a set time period. They happened while we were starting up the unfunded wars.

4. The Bush Administration staged a huge giveaway to the pharma industry. Preventing the negotiation of prices for drugs purchased in bulk was enshrined in law. That means we, the taxpayer, via Medicare, pay the full retail prices as set by the drug companies.

None of the above policies was opposed by right wing conservatives at the time.
Why is that? Dishonesty? Hipocracy? A complete inability to discern right from wrong?
All of the above is a reasonable conclusion.

[lawrocket 3]

Once again, nothing about the wisdom of the present group but everything about the lack of wisdom of the previous one.

How about just saying, "The current group didn't learn?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Once again, nothing about the wisdom of the present group but everything about the lack of wisdom of the previous one.

How about just saying, "The current group didn't learn?"

He inherited a deficit of 10.1% of GDP, and this year looks to be coming in around 7.3% of GDP, I think that sounds kinda like improvement. Is there room for more? Abso-freaking-lutely, but I don't think theres a lot of traction in the argument that he's making the same mistake as his predecessor. Reducing the deficit by any amount is good, we just want to see more of it.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gravitymaster 0]

I'll bet Bush knows how much the deficit and the debt is.

[beowulf 1]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html



Obama Deficits

FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2012*: $1,327 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion

Bush Deficits
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion

I don't think I would call that the right direction. Your statement is misleading at best.

[livendive 8]

Putting the deficit in context to GDP isn't exactly some of invention of mine. It's a rather common practice by the CBO.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Putting the deficit in context to GDP isn't exactly some of invention of mine. It's a rather common practice by the CBO.

Blues,
Dave

It's still misleading.

Your statement makes it sound like Obama is somehow spending less then Bush did, which is not true. Over all the Gov under the Obama Admin is continuing the over trillion dollar a year deficit that Bush started in his last year in office.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Putting the deficit in context to GDP isn't exactly some of invention of mine. It's a rather common practice by the CBO.

Blues,
Dave

It's still misleading.

Your statement makes it sound like Obama is somehow spending less then Bush did, which is not true. Over all the Gov under the Obama Admin is continuing the over trillion dollar a year deficit that Bush started in his last year in office.

Bush's last deficit was $1.413T. The CBO's estimate for 2012 is $1.1T. I'm certainly no math whiz, but to my uneducated eyes, that looks like a $313B difference, or about 22%. Throw in another 7% for inflation and you've got a 29% improvement in real dollars, without regard to GDP.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[beowulf 1]

Your way of looking at it ignores the cumulative value of the yearly trillion dollar deficits and only focusing on comparing to Bush's last year in office. That is a dishonest way of looking at it. Over all under the Obama Admin the US Gov is spending a lot more then under Bush even when considering his last year in office. Bush was wrong to have pushed the deficit over a trillion dollars and Obama is continuing that bad example.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

I'll bet Bush knows how much the deficit and the debt is.

You're sure? I do remember one event, where he did not even know where the exit door was - and that was just one!

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think the real question is what is going to happen the next 4 years to reduce spending? Obama shows no signs of slowing down.

[beowulf 1]

I don't think the president has all that much control over the deficits anymore. Considering the USPS is going to need a bail out and SS and Medicare are runaway freight trains of underfunding.

I don't see any reduction of spending in the near future, but my glass ball has never really worked very well.