In 45 Days Obama Administration Has Authorized More Debt Than Reagan Did In 8 Years

• March 30, 2009

Remember when Obama’s people were trying to describe The One as “Reaganesque?” That’s turned out to be about as believable as Obama’s stated desire to cut back on the nation’s debts.

In his press conference last Tuesday, Barack Obama said that America must reject the “borrow and spend” policies of the past in favor of a strategy of “save and invest.” Sounds good. So why is Obama proposing to borrow and spend more than any president in the history of the republic? Already in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office.
Then last week the Democrats’ own Congressional Budget Office found that the ten-year deficits of the Obama plan will be about $2.3 trillion higher than the $6.97 trillion the White House is projecting. This is the policy of the party that was swept back into power in 2006 and 2008 promising a return to an era of fiscal responsibility.
Welcome to the Obama doctrine.

What’s shocking is that Obama is doing this while simultaneously claiming that he’s going to cut the national debt and annual budget deficits. Which begs the question…who does he think he’s fooling?
Besides his friends and apologists in the mainstream media, that is.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Politics, The Loony Left

http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

change we can believe in that is all we are going to have left.
Hannitized

Bat thinks he made an argument by claiming:

Mr. Bush’s tax rate cuts provided the very same economic stimulus that they had for four previous administrations, two Republican (Coolidge and Reagan) and two Democrat (JFK and Clinton).

Thank you for proving my point that the only thing Bush did was the same ol, same ol. He didn’t do anything different for fear of breaking it. His inability to lead and resolve the problem before it got worse is why we are in this situation.

If you are wearing a suit that is losing its stitching, you re-stitch it, you don’t keep on going on business as usual, less you want to run around in a sleeveless jacket.

Carter didn’t hand Reagan a cluster fuck like Bush handed Obama.

You are clearly too young and inexperienced to recall and understand the impact of double digit inflation and double digit interest rates on the people’s economic well-being.

As I said, Carter didn’t hand Reagan a crisis economy that was collapsing, like Bush handed Obama.

Keep up the facade Bat, you are the bestest WWF wrestler among your little crew.
Hannitized

Please tell me you really aren’t as ignorant as Dino!? This is exactly thew sort of low-grade, partisan sophistry I’d expect from him. Again, you disappoint.

The tax cuts Bush offered was nothing more, nothing less than what we have seen from politicians in the past. At least up until he came forward with TARP.

Bush had neglected to do anything, other than the norm in order to prevent this disaster from occurring. Certainly there were people who could have offered some insight and warning.

Bush was afraid to take a stand on anything other than is pet war in Iraq…and his last act of the TARP legislation.
Bat One

H,

You must have studied economics and finance under the same tutor that “educated” Dino. And by the way, your understanding of history kinda sucks too!

To berate the proven stimulative effect of tax rate cuts is to, conveniently, ignore history. As I’ve noted, four previous presidents cut tax rates to stimulate economic growth… in JFK’s words, “get this country moving again.” And in each case, the economy responded with increased economic growth.

What you and the the other lemmings have not done is offer any prior situations in which massive Keynesian deficit spending, such as Obama is trying, has had a similarly stimulative effect on the economy. The Great Depression certainly doesn’t provide such an example, as even Krugman has acknowledged. Nor does Japan’s “Lost Decade” of monstrous central government deficits in a vain attempt to overcome a deflationary recession.

So, where’s your proof, H? Show us that you know what your trying to talk about. Give us some indication, some past experience, that says that what Obama is trying in terms of economic policy has any hope of being successful. When has his policy been effective in the past?

Because you can’t bring yourselves to critique your “Dear Leader” and because you really don’t know any better anyway, you criticize that which has proven successful in the past, while endorsing a policy of no proven success. And then prattle on about the “facade” of those of us who have far more experience and knowledge than you.
robert108

…the disaster he handed to Obama.

Coincidence doesn’t prove causation, unless you are superstitious. If anybody “handed” anything to Obama(which has made exponentially worse, btw), it was the Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress, which blocked President Bush’s efforts to stop the social engineering affirmative action home loan mandates. The Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress also passed the “bailouts” and the so-called “stimulus package”.
This one is all the property of the Spendocrats.
carrick

Hannitized:

Carter didn’t hand Reagan a cluster fuck like Bush handed Obama.

What dreck. Things were fair worse in January 1981 than they are now.

And by the way, prior to 1981 the house, senate and presidency were controlled by Democrats.

Who you blaming for that debacle?

This last time the house & senate were controlled by Democrats, and the only person you can blame is Bush.

Get back to me when you stop this hyperpartisan nonsense.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Don’t make a generalization that not all republicans didn’t care. (correction of don’t make a generalization that he didn’t.).
robert108

And his warped mind believes this.

Actually, it’s what the numbers tell any intelligent person who takes the trouble to read them, and is smart enough to understand them. Obama has destroyed record amounts of wealth, and has incurred record amounts of debt. That is the recipe for meltdown, fool.
Mickey

Since debt is now already huge, Obama has to resort to 3rd world country type debt levels to try to stimulate demand.

B.S. . Obama was going to spend this money on liberal entitlement programs regardless of anything that happened before. This was his motive from the start. A very small percentage of his stimulus is dedicated to growth. The bulk is PORK!!!!

Whatever happens after this point is all Obama’s doing.
If it becomes an extended recession it is Obama’s recession. If it becomes a depression it is Obama’s depression. If it effects global economics then it is Obama’s actions that did it. It is time for this punk ass phony to take the heat.

He (OBAMA) said the buck stops here (except when he is passing the buck). Just something else he stole from another president. Words. only words.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

and the repubs didnt care when bush was spending like a kennedy

Many did. Not enough, but don’t make a generalization that he didn’t.

Also don’t forget that the last Republican deficit in 2006 was under two hundred billion which is sustainable because the economy is growing faster than the debt.
jimmypop

And Roosevelt created more debt than Hoover.

and he was wrong to do so.

They got their panties in a bunch over the debt the Bush administration created too.
And yet, Obama’s creating more than Bush as well.
But, suddenly, that’s ok.

and the repubs didnt care when bush was spending like a kennedy at a whore house…. tough for ANY elected person to bitch about spending when BOTH sides are sinners. plus, barry voted for all this crap. so hes guilty BEFORE AND NOW.
robert108

…compare 8 years of obama…

No thanks! If we let that Muslim fascist rule for eight years, there will no longer be a USA in the way we know it.
Two months of Obama is too much debt plus destruction of wealth. We can’t afford this clown.
dirl126

Because, Sparkie, Obama’s plans, set in action within 45 days of his taking office, will cost more than Reagan’s eight years.

That amount, whether or not it is finally spent is not the point because it is STILl additional to what he has left…

Obama has 7 years and 320 days left to spend! The bills set in action may not fill their sum in 10 years but Obama sure has Reagan in a bust.
Buzz

Obama has accelerated that slight recession and has turned it into a serious meltdown.

And his warped mind believes this. I just hope you were born sterile. I would hate to think that you reproduced, to soil our land with week minded fools like yourself.

Do you some how find joy in being a Pathological Liar?
bill-tb

The ACTING one is a stupid copy of Marxessque.

Easy to understand once you have the ‘talk’. Obama’s all jive talk, talking in a circle of lies.
Bat One

Bush spent 8 years saying very little about Iraq, his pet war, and little doing anything to help the economy. He just avoided doing anything because he knew he didn’t know shit about how to fix things.

What an inordinately stupid thing to say! Mr. Bush’s tax rate cuts provided the very same economic stimulus that they had for four previous administrations, two Republican (Coolidge and Reagan) and two Democrat (JFK and Clinton). Besides, if deficit spending is so admirable (I haven’t seen anyone on the Left bray about Obama’s monstrous deficits as y’all did about Bush declining ones), then you should have approved of Mr. Bush’s economic policy stewardship, not castigated it witlessly.

Perhaps, if you knew more about economic and fiscal policy you could make an intelligent choice to favor policy over partisanship and personality.

As for this,

Carter didn’t hand Reagan a cluster fuck like Bush handed Obama.

You are clearly too young and inexperienced to recall and understand the impact of double digit inflation and double digit interest rates on the people’s economic well-being. Given the resounding rejection of Carter and his policies by the voters in 1980, however, its pretty obvious that the people understood just how pernicious stagflation was.
Mark

He just avoided doing anything because he knew he didn’t know shit about how to fix things.

And now we’ve got Obama who is trying to “fix” things by growing the government, raising taxes, and fucking up the economy evey worse. He has no clue, and we are dying from his inept administrtion.
robert108

That is because at not point in history have we had to respond to casino capitalism.

More lying bullshit from a usual source of same. If “Keynesian economics” worked, it would work anywhere and everywhere it was tried, but the opposite is true. It has never worked, because it violates economic reality.
Your other lie was “casino capitalism”. The only entity that gambles away our money is the greedy govt. Private sector entities can either win or lose, and to win, they need to create economic growth, i.e., profits.
You’re just spewing leftie bullshit, as usual, H.

I don’t have the time to waste on explaining my opinion to you. You will just smack it down anyway.

With the truth, as usual. That’s the whole point, moron. Your spew of bad information needs to be refuted, every time.
Hannitized

Carter didn’t hand Reagan a cluster fuck like Bush handed Obama.

Bush spent 8 years saying very little about Iraq, his pet war, and little doing anything to help the economy. He just avoided doing anything because he knew he didn’t know shit about how to fix things.
Mark

And Roosevelt created more debt than Hoover. Reagan also didn’t inherit enormous debt and fiscal obligations like Obama did. What’s your point?

Can’t spend our way out of debt, you moron!
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

Reagan’s recession was manufactured by the Fed to bring inflation down, it was a different situation. Once the Fed quit strangling the economy, and combined with Reagan’s increased government spending, it recovered.

Since Bush and cronies spent a crap-load of money during an economic bubble (a stupid thing to do), Obama’s administration was left with the unenviable task of having to try to prop-up demand once the economy crashed. Since debt is now already huge, Obama has to resort to 3rd world country type debt levels to try to stimulate demand.

Shit to be him.

Anything he spends will be considered both too much and too little. (And where he is spending it often isn’t getting the best bang-for-buck.)
Hannitized

Bat, i thought you could read. My bad.

To berate the proven stimulative effect of tax rate cuts is to, conveniently, ignore history.

Where exactly have I done that? Please quote something I have said in this thread that would enable you to leap to that conclusion.

What you and the the other lemmings have not done is offer any prior situations in which massive Keynesian deficit spending, such as Obama is trying, has had a similarly stimulative effect on the economy.

That is because at not point in history have we had to respond to casino capitalism. How are you supposed to talk about something that has never happened in the past.

Obama’s solutions are not adequate without the help of Europe and other leading economic power houses.

I don’t have the time to waste on explaining my opinion to you. You will just smack it down anyway. But I am not going to let this site produce pack of lies, and half-truths for the purposes of spreading partisan propaganda.

I will continue to remark where appropriate.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

Obama was going to spend this money on liberal entitlement programs regardless of anything that happened before. This was his motive from the start.

Total speculation. Fantasy.

If it becomes an extended recession it is Obama’s recession. If it becomes a depression it is Obama’s depression.

Saying it doesn’t make it true.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Why are the leftards bailing out the so called casino capitalists?

If you want more of something, subsidize it.
Bat One

In other words, H, you can give no example when massive Keynesian deficits as proposed by Obama, deficits “as far as the eye can see” to quote David Stockman, have had the sort of stimulative effect on the nation’s economy that Obama HOPES they will have. Yet tax rate cuts, which have been shown to have exactly the sort of stimulative effect that a recession calls for, those you berate as “same ol’ same ol’.”

I wouldn’t want you to waste your time trying to explain your opinion. In the first place, I doubt that you could do so very cogently or convincingly. And in the second, I suspect that this isn’t really “your” opinion so much as it is this week’s most favored talking points. (I notice that some uber fuhrer on the Nazi Left has added a new buzz phrase… “Casino Capitalism.” Glib, to be sure, but hardly an accurate description of anything pertinent.)

Incidentally, isn’t that Ms. Susan Strange’s phrase? You really should give credit where its due.
Hannitized

Bat beats a dead horse;

In other words, H, you can give no example when massive Keynesian deficits as proposed by Obama, deficits “as far as the eye can see” to quote David Stockman, have had the sort of stimulative effect on the nation’s economy that Obama HOPES they will have.

Again, how can we show examples of cause and effect from a remedy that has never been applied to a particular pain before?

The economic disaster Bush has left us in is unlike any we have seen before. Tax cuts maybe helpful, but they are not the solution. If you recall, it was tax cuts that got us here in the first place, genius.

Do you have a more sophisticated argument? This horse you keep trotting out, is tired.
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

This ideology that BHO and the social democrats are pushing will force the former USA into socialism and communism quicker than anyone will imagine. The only things that make money and capital are hard work and ingenuity not stealing and sloth.
Bat One

Another thing to consider and remember Bat; the tax cuts Bush offered were not enough to prevent the disaster he handed to Obama.

WHA-A-A-T!!! The Bush tax cuts took effect in 2002 and 2003 and they were passed, grudgingly by Democrats, in response to the Clinton dot Com bubble burst recession, and the economic effects of the 9-11 attacks. To suggest, even implicitly, that the 2003 tax rate cuts should have anticipated the 2008 “credit crisis” and subsequent recession borders on dementia. Especially for someone who uncritically accepts Obama’s 10 year budget fable (without apparently understanding the long-term significance of that enormous untruth).

You’ve wandered well into Dino country here, H. Sure hope the forest creatures didn’t eat your breadcrumbs while you weren’t paying attention.
Hannitized

BO,

(I notice that some uber fuhrer on the Nazi Left has added a new buzz phrase… “Casino Capitalism.” Glib, to be sure, but hardly an accurate description of anything pertinent.)

Please….your cursory Google searches don’t exemplify the type intellect I assumed you to have on occasion. Really, you can do better.
Bat One

Bat beats a dead horse.

The horse that’s dead, H, is the one you rode in on.

Please….your cursory Google searches don’t exemplify the type intellect I assumed you to have on occasion. Really, you can do better.

No need to do better. Not if I’m simply staying a step or two ahead of you.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

And Roosevelt created more debt than Hoover. Reagan also didn’t inherit enormous debt and fiscal obligations like Obama did. What’s your point?

Not that I believe your numbers anyway. This from the party that doubled the debt on SHIT in 6 years.

Reagan, like all republicans, was evil.
Bat One

If you recall, it was tax cuts that got us here in the first place, genius.

Really??? Please tell me you really aren’t as ignorant as Dino!? This is exactly thew sort of low-grade, partisan sophistry I’d expect from him. Again, you disappoint.
Hannitized

To suggest, even implicitly, that the 2003 tax rate cuts should have anticipated the 2008 “credit crisis” and subsequent recession borders on dementia.

Bat, can you make up your mind. Why do you keep going on and on about the tax cuts and their supposed effects, if you are not arguing for their use, today.

If the tax cuts in 2003 DID not prevent the credit crisis of today, then why are you hassling me for my comments that Bush did nothing to prevent the disaster that he handed over to Obama?

I first said he did “little”, little being the tax cuts….but “nothing” to prevent the crisis he handed to Obama. To use the term “little” is not “berating”, if my argument was about doing “nothing” for the credit crisis.

Here is how you argued against my point.

Bush spent 8 years saying very little about Iraq, his pet war, and little doing anything to help the economy. He just avoided doing anything because he knew he didn’t know shit about how to fix things.

AND…

Thank you for proving my point that the only thing Bush did was the same ol, same ol. He didn’t do anything different for fear of breaking it. His inability to lead and resolve the problem before it got worse is why we are in this situation.

If you are wearing a suit that is losing its stitching, you re-stitch it, you don’t keep on going on business as usual, less you want to run around in a sleeveless jacket.

To berate the proven stimulative effect of tax rate cuts is to, conveniently, ignore history. As I’ve noted, four previous presidents cut tax rates to stimulate economic growth… in JFK’s words, “get this country moving again.” And in each case, the economy responded with increased economic growth. – BatOne

And..

Yet tax rate cuts, which have been shown to have exactly the sort of stimulative effect that a recession calls for, those you berate as “same ol’ same ol’.” – BatOne

So for what ever reason you are on your high horse about lifting up his tax cuts, which you now admit did nothing to help or prevent the credit crisis.

So what is your answer to Obama’s stimulus?? Tax credits. What did they do the first time to prevent the crisis? Nothing. What will they do this time to save the crisis? Little, if nothing at all.
robert108

Reagan also didn’t inherit enormous debt and fiscal obligations like Obama did.

Another lie from uneducated little dinostem. President Reagan inherited an economic debacle from Carter that was far worse than the one that happened at the end of President Bush’s second term. Obama has accelerated that slight recession and has turned it into a serious meltdown. President Reagan also inherited Carter’s bungling of Iran and the hostage crisis. GW Bush inherited the debris of the dot.com bubble and ENRON from Clinton, along with the cowardice in dealing with terrorism that enabled 9/11 to happen.
Obama has inherited a strong policy against Islamic terrorism, and is bungling it badly with his appeasement.
robert108

The economic disaster Bush has left us in…

Exactly what policies of President Bush caused any sort of economic disaster? No slogans, please; just cause and effect reasoning.
robert108

If you recall, it was tax cuts that got us here in the first place, genius.

I don’t recall any tax rate cuts doing any such thing. Please explain the chain of causation that “got us here”, starting with any tax rate reductions you like.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Didn’t the lefties (especially Kent Conrad) get their panties all in a bunch over the debt that occurred during the Reagan Administration.

Now these same clowns are all in a rush to borrow like there’s no tomorrow.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Proof,

It’s that projection thing again. Democratic group think assumes the Republicans are in the same kind of lockstep they are.
Hannitized

Another thing to consider and remember Bat; the tax cuts Bush offered were not enough to prevent the disaster he handed to Obama.

This is history, you can not refute this, yet your only argument seems to that the tax cuts Bush offered worked. Well, the did to a degree….they did “something”, but they did nothing to prevent the catastrophic economic event that occurred prior to his departure.

I don’t know what level of sophistry you are looking for, but I think you would do your credibility a world of good if you quite pretending to sound like an economist. Neither of us are, and even economists disagree and worse, none of them seem to know the answer.

The only solution the Republicans in power are offering is another stimulus, that spends less money and supposedly has less fat in it.

Well, that is not much of a solution that dramatically alters the work Obama is doing.

Rush and the rest of them are just posing.

Obama is not making me entirely happy, I am not enjoying the amount of money he is spending, but I am counting on the fact that they know more than the people who offer nothing as alternative, except for….”let it fail”…..”cut taxes”.

Neither of those sound like good ideas to me.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

Things were fair worse in January 1981 than they are now.

They were not. Not even close.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

do your own math, sparkless.
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

Dino:

Reagan, like all republicans, was evil.

Until you display a better grasp of the mechanics of free will than the average mentally retarded gerbil, words like evil, good, hell, and so on should not be used by you. Stick to things your intellect can grasp. Like chairs, a rope around your neck, air under your feet, that sort of simple thing.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Didn’t the lefties (especially Kent Conrad) get their panties all in a bunch over the debt that occurred during the Reagan Administration.

They got their panties in a bunch over the debt the Bush administration created too.

And yet, Obama’s creating more than Bush as well.

But, suddenly, that’s ok.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

dirl
that doesnt explain why you guys aren’t making an effort at a fair comparason.

future projections from partisans are worth jack shit, friend.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

correct for inflation and get back to us. compare 8 years of obama (not 10) to 8 years of reagan and get back to us. compare actual spending (not partisan projections) to actual spending and get back to us.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/sparkiearbuckle sayanything-81

why are we considering ten years of obama’s projected spending against eight years of reagan’s actual spending with no correction for inflation?

inquiring minds want to know.
Larry Velasco

Barry Soetoro Hussein, AKA, Little Fraud, Un-American, Rip-off artist, fool, Half-Breed, PUNK, JOKE, Muslim, should be IMPEACHED NOW. Ride him out of the country on a rail. He is BAD NEWS. Kick his marble fudge butt. Concerned AMERICAN, L. Velasco

http://sayanythingblog.com Mountainmouth

How do you REALLY feel?

SayAnythingBlog.com

In 45 Days Obama Administration Has Authorized More Debt Than Reagan Did In 8 Years

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments