USA Today : "Obama Now Owns 60% of Debt & Can No Longer Credibly Blame Bush"

by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, USA TODAY

Published: 01/14/2013 06:47pm

President Obama, the Democrats, and plenty of Republicans in Congress, would like it if you'd spend the next few weeks talking about gun control. That's because when you are, you're not talking about the country's financial situation.

And, as the graph included here, taken from OMB budget data, illustrates, the situation is dire. Spending keeps going up. Revenues, however, are not. And, since we're borrowing the difference, President Obama has what Politico is calling a debt problem: "The staggering national debt - up about 60% from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 - is the single biggest blemish on Obama's record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush. Obama has long emphasized Bush's role in digging the immense hole. But he owns it now."

Well, things did start to go south under Bush. But look at that graph more closely. In 2003, when we invaded Iraq (one of those "two wars on the credit card" that Obama likes to blame for the debt), and when we passed the Bush tax cuts (the other thing Obama likes to blame for the debt) revenue actually started to climb. The revenue and spending lines start to converge, and, as they head up to 2006 it actually looks as if the two might cross, with revenue outpacing spending.

Even the New York Times noticed, spotting unexpected increases in revenue in 2005, and in 2006 noting that a "surprising" increase in tax revenues was closing the budget gap. The heady possibility of surpluses was in the air. But -- look at the graph again -- everything changes in 2007.

What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn't struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade. The trend immediately reversed, and became much worse with President Obama's election in 2008 and inauguration in 2009. (In fact, despite talk of "wars on the credit card," we could save a lot of money by cutting defense spending back to where it was in 2007.)

So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama's fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills).

Economist Herbert Stein observed that something that can't go on forever, won't. The United States can't go on forever increasing its debt by 60% every four years. Therefore, it won't. The only question is how things will stop -- smoothly or catastrophically.

As we head into the next debt-ceiling debate, it's worth considering these words from a patriotic senator concerned with America's future:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

The senator? Sen. Barack Obama, in 2006.

I wish that guy was President now.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He blogs at InstaPundit.com.

For those who will just scream "source" and put their heads in the sand, this is based off OMB numbers, is a USA Today column (hardly conservative), and is based off a story from Politico, which isn't remotely conservative.

Link : http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...gress/1830363/

But we know who can blame him...

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

For those who will just scream "source" and put their heads in the sand, this is based off OMB numbers, is a USA Today column (hardly conservative), and is based off a story from Politico, which isn't remotely conservative.

Why can't you ever just link to the article?

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

For those who will just scream "source" and put their heads in the sand...

Originally Posted by rapier7

Why can't you ever just link to the article?

Get your head out of the sand rapier

too bad bush didn't cut outlays when receipts were increasing or do anything about the impending housing and financial crashes. could have been running a budget surplus for years. quite a clusterfvck he passed on.

obama will be judged by his response to the same increase in receipts we are now seeing. he has a huge opportunity to reduce outlays and get us on a track to surplus.

can someone explain where all this new spending is going? we are ending expensive wars, bringing troops home, reducing military spending. people bitch and complain about welfare, but is that really such a big chunk as people like to make it out to be?

Originally Posted by rapier7

Why can't you ever just link to the article?

Link added. For future reference, there is this cool tool called Google.. and if you copy/paste a sentence into it and put quotes around it, you'll likely find what you were looking for...


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22+President+O...+situation.%22

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Link added. For future reference, there is this cool tool called Google.. and if you copy/paste a sentence into it and put quotes around it, you'll likely find what you were looking for...


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22+President+O...+situation.%22

You're the one who posted the article. Post the link because people (myself included) don't want to have what you perceive to be the important points bolded for them.

Originally Posted by evolved

You're the one who posted the article. Post the link because people (myself included) don't want to have what you perceive to be the important points bolded for them.

I completely understand and, in turn, added the link.. it was the way that it was phrased that irked me.

Actually... I'd go all the way back to Reagan and the Star Wars program. We did get a lot of cool technology out of the deal... But it cost us all dearly.

Generally speaking... Democrats are regarded as "Tax and Spend" while Republicans are regarded as "Borrow and Spend"... It just kills me how the Republicans never wanted to raise taxes and now they no longer want to borrow. Then the baggers came along and foisted the debt back onto the people who never really added too much to it prior to Obama inheriting the Shrubs mess.

When one gets down to brass tacks, there are a multitude of people to blame for our current situation. Seating the blame squarely on one person is disingenuous and reeks of an agenda or being a party cheerleader. Both parties have a spending problem it's just that the Democrats increase spending by way of social programs for the bottom earners, whereas Republicans increase spending by way of corporate welfare and defense spending....all of it goes on the house account either way.

FWIW, I'm all for a tax hike that goes across the board. Hell, Obama appealed more to me than I imagine he would his own supporters when it came to the fiscal cliff compromise. Tax the sh*t out of me and everyone else as long as we're getting somewhere... but don't tax us all in order to pay for more crap. A raise at work should result in a larger bank account.. not more cars in the driveway

Originally Posted by evolved

When one gets down to brass tacks, there are a multitude of people to blame for our current situation. Seating the blame squarely on one person is disingenuous and reeks of an agenda or being a party cheerleader. Both parties have a spending problem it's just that the Democrats increase spending by way of social programs for the bottom earners, whereas Republicans increase spending by way of corporate welfare and defense spending....all of it goes on the house account either way.

Agreed... but that is the point of the article. For four years we've heard about Bush's war and tax cuts.. this article is basically calling him out and saying "you no longer can point to him".. which is what mannnnny people have been saying for a long time. Next time typical suspects cry out "well Bush..." I'm just linking them to this article

you bolded 90% of the article. I'm distracted. LOL.

Originally Posted by phrozen06

you bolded 90% of the article. I'm distracted. LOL.

In case anyone is trying to figure out what you actually mean.

Originally Posted by evolved

Both parties have a spending problem it's just that the Democrats increase spending by way of social programs for the bottom earners, whereas Republicans increase spending by way of corporate welfare and defense spending....all of it goes on the house account either way.

Are you saying Republican tax cuts are considered spending?

Deduct every expense related to war, defense, and terrorism and get back to me...

This is getting better and better.

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer

too bad bush didn't cut outlays when receipts were increasing or do anything about the impending housing and financial crashes. could have been running a budget surplus for years. quite a clusterfvck he passed on.

obama will be judged by his response to the same increase in receipts we are now seeing. he has a huge opportunity to reduce outlays and get us on a track to surplus.

can someone explain where all this new spending is going? we are ending expensive wars, bringing troops home, reducing military spending. people bitch and complain about welfare, but is that really such a big chunk as people like to make it out to be?

Bush wrote Fannie and Freddie several times, as an impending bubble pop was imminent, they said everything was okay, so did barney fwank

Originally Posted by GlockMan

Deduct every expense related to war, defense, and terrorism and get back to me...

Personally, I prefer my government expenditures to be in line with their delegated powers... But that's me

There's no good solution to the debt problem unless you want to piss off the majority of Americans. And that's something no elected official will ever do if they can avoid it. At this point, I say we should spend as much as we can as fast as we can in order to get to our fiscal crisis, because only then will the American people accept the fact that they need to reconcile their wants with their means.

Originally Posted by rapier7

There's no good solution to the debt problem unless you want to piss off the majority of Americans. And that's something no elected official will ever do if they can avoid it. At this point, I say we should spend as much as we can as fast as we can in order to get to our fiscal crisis, because only then will the American people accept the fact that they need to reconcile their wants with their means.

Or we can just make the other 51% pay for it all. People around here seem okay with that.