I know you had a fact in there some where, but I couldn't find it; maybe you should turn off the 'Dungeon and Dragons' channel, whoops, I meant Faux news, and get with the modern world.........

Dude, I'm the first to decry the Internet's continued failure to meet the urgent, but thus far unmet, need for a sarcasm font, but that one wasn't one that needed it.

The only idea the republicants have for the economy is to put us back on the gold standard..........

@Memekiller - Very well said.

I swear it's like part of this country believes that the debt clock re-starts at zero from each president. Wars carry over, tax cuts carry over, economic recessions carry over. It doesn't start over from 0. You're saying $6 trillion has been accumulated under Obama's watch. How much of that $6 trillion has been because of Obama and how much of it is carry over? Because if you don't know this answer to this then you are being wildly insane in assuming that if a Republican was in office or if a Republican were to gain office that somehow that debt would not have carried over into his administration as well. Do you think the debt clock will start over at zero under Romney? No. Will Romney be able to wipe out the $16 trillion debt you're complaining about? No. Will the recession stop? No. The wars? No. The taxcuts? No. Medicare Advantage? No. Assistance programs? No.

What you have to understand about debt when it comes to nations is that most of this debt is projected over a time period. We aren't $16 trillion in debt now; we expect to be in the future if nothing changes. Change anything- so put unemployment down to 4%, end the wars, and repeal the tax cuts and suddenly our projected debt lowers to $11 trillion. That's because this money hasn't been spent yet. Remember the majority of our debt is NOT money that we OWE it is money that we expect to owe.

Of course the "lion's share" of that $6T is interest on George Bush's spending, but, hey, who gonna believe that right?! Oh yeah, 2/3 of the country believes that...

..."(Reuters) - About two-thirds of Americans believe Republican former U.S. President George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's struggling economy..."

So, you enjoy the fruits of the overspending but shy from paying for it? How does it make any sense to blame Obama for what Congress spent that it now doesn't want to pay for?

Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Record Deficits.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=29

Here's the question that wingnuts can't answer: What Obama policies are responsible for that $5+ trillion additional debt since Obama took office?

There's a reason they can't answer it.

For those moored to reality, the following are helpful in explaining this, yet another, Republican economic failure.

Summary: Deficits and debt are 100% caused by Republican failed economic ideas and policies.

- Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

- Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | What’s Driving Projected Debt?

- How the Deficit Got This Big - NYTimes.com

- Sources of the Budget Deficit - NYTimes.com

- CHART: Spending, Taxes, And Deficits Are All Lower Today Than When Obama Took Office | ThinkProgress

- The Truth About Federal Spending

- MarketWatch Column On Obama's Spending Restraint Stands Up To Attacks | Media Matters for America

- The myth of Obama's spending binge - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

- Obama Presided Over a Tax Revenue Drought, Not a Spending Binge | Crooks and Liars

- Who's to Blame for the Deficit Numbers?

- 1937

- Obama spending binge never happened - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

- Right-Wing Media Ignore Bush Effect On Debt To Suggest Obama Criticism Is Hypocrisy | Media Matters for America

- Despite Being Warned, Right-Wing Media Buy Into The "BS" Claims About Obama's Spending Record | Media Matters for America

- Simply Orthogonal to the Facts

- If You Want Another Debt and Spending Binge, Vote GOP

- http://static1.firedoglake.com/41/files/2012/05/rsz_chart_2.png

There's a simple explanation. Barack Obama wasted $6T of our hard earned taxpayer dollars and gave it to his BUDDIES, BUNDLERS, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, UNIONS, GREEN ENERGY SCAMS. He now holds the Guiness World Record title as the biggest spender and his administration as the most corrupt in World History. N'uff said...next.

Answer the question here Cindy- you are making a baseless accusation about spending and you have no information to back it up. You accuse Obama of wasting that money on everything else (surprised you didn't throw child molesters in your list) yet you do not provide proof.

How much spending has President Obama done since he got into office? Once you know the answer to that question then you will know how much spending was done at the governmental level over something that neither a Republican or Democratic president would have had control over. You make this giant leap in logic assuming that if Mitt Romney were president or if he becomes president that somehow magically the government will stop spending money. But the only way to know if this is true is to know how much is automatic spending and how much is new spending. Until you can answer that basic question you are not in a position to be blaming Obama for things you clearly do not comprehend.

Excellent!!! Cindy has solved the problem of where the money went!! There's only one problem: the totals don't add to $6 trillion. I mean, ..., seriously, we're talking NOT FU KING CLOSE. Say maybe 1 part in 1,000,000.

So Cindy has to start all over again. For convenience, I repeat the assignment:

What Obama policies are responsible for that $5+ trillion additional debt since Obama took office? (For Cindy: make sure the numbers add up.)

PS: Anybody have the answer for how wingnuts got so stupid?

Am I getting into your nerves. Great !!! Just the way a planned it.

Stupidity can bother me, but it can also make me laugh. Somebody as stupid as you makes me laugh because I know going into it how stupid you are. And ignorant.

So give us all something to laugh about again. Finish the assignment with numbers so we get to grade it and see how close you get to $6,000,000,000,000. (Make sure you read those links. If you can.)

Right it's amazing how much debt that Republican added to this nation. Glad you agree

Fox-educated Eric is an idiot, and has proven his dislocation from reality.

However, we might be able to resurrect his reputation if he completes the following assignment: Read the links I posted in the thread above, and then tell us how the country can get itself out from under the fiscal problems Republicans have given us while growing the economy.

Good luck on your assignment, Eric. We're pulling for you.

And that doesn't even cover it all! Remember how the two previous Republicans TRIPLED the debt. They spent so much money that in the early 80s blue state California actually was taking in more dollars in federal money than we were paying out to the federal government in taxes. Amazing that they get any credit for being the party of fiscal responsibility. These modern Republicans are not your (great-)grandfather's Republican party.

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office," Obama said. "Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." - President Barack Obama

If it couldn't be done, why make an empty promise? Take responsibility or place blame? But people like AllDisgusting laps them up, don't you?

Of course, when Obama made that statement, he was under the mistaken impression that Republicans in Congress would act in the best interests of the nation and pass jobs bills, instead of filibustering everything and voting on useless things like repealing the ACA and making English our offical language.

What the hell are you talking about Cindy? Obama was saying that he believed that if he couldn't get unemployment down that this would likely mean he wasn't getting re-elected. You can't say that he was lying when he made that statement. That statement was a prediction. You do understand what a LIE is, yes? A lie is when you claim that X is true when in fact something else entirely different from X is true. A prediction is when you assume how people are going to react to you on the basis of certain criteria; it's a hypothesis that you're making about what might happen.

Are you saying he was predicting his own defeat???? I doubt his ego would allow that, but if you say so it must be true.

What the hell do you think he was saying stk? He was saying that he did not believe that if he could not get the unemployment rate below 8% he would not be able to get re-elected in 2012. That is what he said almost verbatum. How the hell anyone misconstrues such a blunt point is just insane. He was making a predictive statement about what he thought would happen given the circumstances mentioned. It wasn't a promise and it wasn't an assertion of fact. It's like looking outside, seeing that the clouds are dark, and then saying I believe if I don't bring an umbrella to work today I'll regret it later. Maybe you will maybe you won't: that's what makes it a prediction. How in the hell this type of simplistic language is incomprehensible to other people is just amazing to me.

How about not making it your number one goal to make this President a one term President. How about making your one goal to get our Country back on its feet economically. How about passing the Jobs Act Bill and not filibustering it so it would not pass. How about the revised Jobs Act bill that would put Teachers, First Responders back to work and get Infrastructure going. In order to move Forward, the Republicans in Congress had to put Country before Party and they did not. Can they compromise and actually work with this President to bring our Country back? We are moving forward slowly without them, but imagine how fast we would move if they had worked in the best interest of the Country, rather than their own political ambitions.

In order to reduce the debt, you need to increase revenue and cut waste, fraud and spending.

Lorr,

A lot of things you say I agree with - like working together. The unfortunate thing is I think we are in too deep. Passing a Jobs Act Bill and spending on infrastructure is a great idea, but for one thing that will cost more money we don't have - just like the $750 Billion stimulus bill did - and it may bump up the economic activity enough to give us a suplus, but as I stated earlier we will need a LOT of surplus years to knock down most of the 16,000 Billion we now owe. And the cynic in me says the Congress may let 2 or 3 surpluses go towards the debt, but not 10 or 15 surpluses - they like to spend $$ when it is available. Just sayin.

Poor skip. Display his ignorance of economics, again. The reality is we can't really afford not to have the government take over when the private sector isn't doing what it's supposed to do for the society is has the privilege of gaining advantage from. Unless the millions and millions of destroyed lives who did nothing to deserve their fate means nothing to us. If that's true I suppose we can wait it all out till the situation. But poor skip failed to realize that the famous freshwater economists lost the "government can't create growth" argument in the last four years. Lost it badly.

And WWII told us all we need to know that it works. And so do the post Great Recession studies. And it's too bad skip missed out on that. That's what you get for watching Fox. But poor skip remains glued to Fox. Poor, poor skip.

The only way out of this is to spend on infrastructer. There was only one time in the history of our country where we were not in debt. That is the way countries work. Google the two Santa Clause theory, it explains exactly what is going on in our government right now. Cheney was the one that said deficits didn't matter and the republicans agreed. Now that they don't have the White House, deficits do matter. This is a political ploy to try and take full power of our government and turn it into an oligarchy. If I recall, FDR spent his way out of the great depression. He showed us the way. The republicans were so appalled by the fact that he built safety nets for us that they introduced Presidential term limits so something like that couldn't happen again. Instead they want to do that same things that Bush did and they expect a different result. That is insanity. Eliminating government jobs and putting those workers on unemplyment is just making things worse. Those people are still getting money from the government, but now they are not paying taxes. So now less money is coming in. Why does no one see this?

Disgusted,

I do understand economics, but being an accountant too I do have a little sense of reality when is comes to actual events versus theories. I do agree that many times government needs to prime the pump but there is a point when it may not be the endall. The $750 Billion stimulus that was supposed to fund a ton of "shovel ready" jobs did not work out as well as planned. Yes it probably saved some jobs, but the unemployment level is still high - higher than the posted 8% in reality - and no matter who is to blame, I just don't think throwing more borrowed money in that manner will make a big dent.

As usual every post here is just looking back and placing blame

...yes because as an accountant you never try to explain to your clients why they are in the situation they are in. How does one look back anyways about an issue that is on going? If I decide to purchase a home and that mortgage is adding 1,500$ to my monthly expenditures a month that expenditure affects me in the future as well as in the past. However I cannot know that my mortgage is the reason I'm falling behind on my bills unless I am willing to look at my expenses and see what's affecting me. Blame is a subjective term- what you see as blame is historical context. OK you don't like historical context? That's your deal. Don't project this onto other people.

So instead of having to raise the debt ceiling say, every six months, we just raise it once a year. But, we are still raising it.

This is not how debt ceilings work. Debt ceilings have very little to do with whether or not the United States is in debt. This is another case of literalism and messaging gone awry. People do not bother to research what terms mean so they play an appeal to ignorance fallacy and assume that the words are to be taken literally. People do this with hate crimes and global warming all the time. Well if it snows it must not be global warming! Aren't all crimes motivated by hate? That means it's not real! No- all that is going on here is your inability to do research on a subject and understand what the name means. If you say that the debt ceiling is raised you are actually saying that the United States has increased it's capability of paying off debt. Presumably this isn't what you meant to say when your post is about not liking the level of debt we're in.

Even if you eliminated all government spending we would still be in debt as a nation. That's because debt at the national level doesn't work like debt in your personal finances. The majority of the debt is in regards to money that we expect to spend going forward, but money that has not actually been spent. It is money that we believe we will owe. Any change in any factor- such as more revenues- immediately changes the projected debt. That's not because the debt is getting paid off, that's because now you have revenues to match the expected future spending. This differs from personal finance where when you say you're in debt you're saying you took money and now directly owe that money back to, say, a bank. Unless you start paying that money off- either by getting a second job and making monthly payments or cutting significantly on your personal spending (or both)- that debt will continue to rise and continue to accumulate interest. That is NOT how national debt works.

Well, you may have thought you gave us a reason to think you might understand economics by stating you're an accountant, but it probably explains why you haven't a whit of understanding of economics. Economics is not accounting. We don't live in a non-monetary economy. We don't have a fixed money stock. We don't have a rigid cash-in-advance constraint. Government spending at the zero lower bound does not crowd out private investment. This isn't simplistic static double entry ledger stuff.

The stimulus worked. If you had been paying attention, you'd know that. Research motivated by the Great Recession your Team caused has brought even more evidence that government spending results in a multiplier advantageous to the economy.

And if you knew what your were talking about you would also know that the stimulus was nowhere near big enough to replace the lost demand, as was warned by many at the time it was enacted, but wasn't entirely known for sure until Spring 2011, 2.5 years after the initial calculations were done with wildly imperfect information. You'd know how to calculate that lost demand. And you'd know if that demand isn't replaced somehow employment is going to suffer. And you'd understand the aggresive viciousness and callousness of Republican obstruction to do something about the problems they caused. But you don't know those things. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The $750 Billion stimulus that was supposed to fund a ton of "shovel ready" jobs did not work out as well as planned.

Well they weren't actually shovel ready jobs. It was money given to states with those states then promising to use that money on spending. The states then used that federal money to balance their budget sheets and began laying people off work. What money did get out there to create jobs went directly to businesses who promised they would hire people. In many instances they did not. In both cases I certainly think you could blame Obama for that. He took a very conservative approach to giving funding. Instead of having the federal government establish a jobs corps to directly put people back to work, thereby having people directly work on roads and other infrastructure, he instead trusted the states and private firms to handle that money. In the end doing the latter ended up costing us billions in wasted revenues from poor planning. It's completely fair to ding Obama for this, but let's be clear as to what we're getting mad at him for.

Money is not borrowed in the way you're thinking it is. I think you're confusing personal finances here with public finances. When the United States "borrows" money what that means is that the US issues more treasury bonds and allows those bonds to be purchased. When we say we "owe" money to countries like China and Japan what we are saying is that those countries purchased X amount in treasury bonds. Those bonds have to be paid out in a future date for the amount they were worth plus the accumulated interest (agreed upon at the time the bond was issued). The US government then prints money or otherwise allocates money in accordance with those bonds. No money is actually given to the United States by another country and the other country likely doesn't expect to be paid back. In fact the other country will likely never cash those bonds out and when they come due will simply re-purchase them back for future promises. Why? Because holding bonds with the US then gives that country bargaining power to achieve things that it does want: things like better international trade policy that favors that nation, more power and representation within the UN, permission to build things (like nuclear reactors) that said nation would likewise not be allowed to build. Do not mistake me- I'm not saying this shouldn't be counted as actual debt (it is still debt no matter what), but this type of debt doesn't exist in the same way I think you're used to dealing with. You are used to dealing with someone who has taken a loan from a bank in which that bank GAVE that person money and that person now has to pay the bank back. That bank EXPECTS to be paid back. It doesn't work this way when countries issue each other bonds.

Now you could certainly make the libertarian argument that you don't like this. This is why individuals like Ron Paul argue we should go back to the gold standard because it would essentially prevent the US from borrowing money. There is a compelling argument to be had on that side, but I personally don't agree with it. I think personally that people have a hard time understanding that in classical economics at the national level the expectation is that your government owes money at all times. A government that doesn't owe any money likely is a government about to collapse or has already collapsed.

There is not a compelling argument for the gold standard.

Not to be more preachy than I already have been- by the way when I was saying you haven't done research I was meaning that more as in the people who make the aforementioned arguments...I don't actually know if that applies to you personally skip- but I just want to explain the bonds issue a little bit more.

A debt ceiling is when you raise the amount of money the US government can issue in bonds. Now usually speaking does this mean the US is going to "borrow" more money (meaning sell more off to other nations)? Yes. However the debt ceiling in and of itself doesn't represent this. The debt ceiling getting raised simply means that the US is extending it's credit further- think of it like a credit card. Raising the debt ceiling simply means the US has taken out another credit card. Now when the congress votes to do this it is almost always because the congress has overspent- to that extent I will meet you half way and say that I am more than sympathetic as to the confusion with regards to the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling only exists because the US Congress is lazy and doesn't want to have to constantly debate and pass bills for when the US Congress is going to spend money. It's just a rule put into place that allows for them to spend money without debate: the rule itself doesn't change anything.

I also want to explain that deficits are a measure of year-to-year spending. So when a nation runs a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit that means that every year the nation is spending 1.5 trillion more than what it is making. Now does this then lead to debt? Well yes because then the US has to issue more bonds in order to pay for spending of that year. But if you eliminate the deficit then you eliminate all need for future issuing of bonds (at least so long as the surplus runs). That means then the only spending you owe is the money to yourself. And that is what leads to a surplus.

There is not a compelling argument for the gold standard.

Well I suppose I think there is to the extent that I agree that national financing is crazy complicated and the gold standard makes it not complicated. But I suppose that's like saying you are too confused about how to pay your upkeep bills and mortgage on your house so you burned the whole thing down. Does it take care of that problem? Well yes, but you really don't have anything left afterwards.

But by doing X and making things tidy in one's head while tying one's options in handcuffs is not a compelling argument for X.

touche

The debt is not Obama's fault,

OK, that's true and good to know...but knowing that does not get rid of our debt. We have to start sacrificing - taxing more and spending less - which I believe is going to start automatically in January. And I guarentee you, even though they are already slated to start automatically on January 1st, the average American will blame whoever gets elected in November.

Yet more idiotic fretting over the debt. It is NOT the most pressing problem. It is a mid to long term problem. And it IS a problem caused by Republicans and their failed conservative economic ideas and policies.

The debt is not going to get better under Romney and his magic tax plans. Even worse is the fact that the same neocon idiots responsible for Iraq with the tremendous waste of trillions for a war that should never have happened are Romney's advisers. And some of them are itching for a war with Iran. But not because there is a security reason. Rather it is a war to feed the private defense contractors. Follow the campaign contribution monies and they will lead to Congress.

Yes, let's not forget that the Lyin' Sacks of Mitt plans are even worse for debt. Still, debt shouldn't be the focus now other than for a public to learn it is a mid-to-long term problem. If the economy got going, the Bush tax cuts were completely rescinded, and the wars were finished we don't have a serious problem. Then if we actually got serious about the disaster private health care system the U.S. has, we have absolutely no problem whatsoever.

But Republicans want to kill the government. And they need to make the problems they caused up to now, even worse. And so they will.

Clinton was riding the wave of the dot-com bubble. Lots of stock-market millionaires leveraging their options to buy houses, cars and crap.

When did the tax cuts expire? 2010. What happened in 2010?

I would like to see which party was the majority in Congress during these times. Not sure if there is a definite pattern, but as everyone seems to agree the current recession started in 2007 - and the Democrats controlled Congress beginning in 2006 - and for some of the suplus years of Clinton's Presidency the Republicans controlled Congress (the last 6 of his 8 years when the surpluses hit). Of course you would have to consider that there would be a lag of some time - both positive and negative - on the effects of Congress's actions. We have to remember that the President does not make budgets, Congress does.

@Skip

You forget that the southern Dems were really Republicans in disguise. Assigning blame on party is of little use. There were many times since FDR that the conservative southern Dems voted with Republicans on various issues.

I loved Ayn Rand and read every one of her novels, great stories. Then I read "The Virtues of Selfishness".......and decided it was time to grow up.