Why do people believe that Obama caused the huge deficit? When anyone with?

[bocley]

You're one delusional libtard. Your messiah has accrued more national debt than all 43 Presidents combined, sorry to burst your indoctrinated bubble. Remember when Obama said he'd reduce deficit spending to under a trillion dollars? It's now at a staggering $1.3 trillion and rising. The housing market collapse was precipitated by deregulation of the housing market mostly established under Democratic Presidents' watch, and the socialization of the market with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae offering loans with individuals on every credit echelon like crack in a rehab.

[delron72]

Official Congressional budget estimates understate the peril of rising debt, Fed chair Ben Bernanke told the Budget Committee on Capitol Hill today.
Warning that our nation's fiscal health has deteriorated appreciably since the onset of the financial crisis and the recession, Bernanke called upon lawmakers to confront the long term fiscal challenges sooner rather than later. If lawmakers don't confront them, they'll find themselves confronted by them.
From Bernanke's prepared remarks:
By definition, the unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the CBO outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government with debt, relative to national income, that is rising without limit. One way or the other, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the federal budget must occur at some point. The question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process that weighs priorities and gives people adequate time to adjust to changes in government programs or tax policies, or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will come as a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis.
Bernanke explained that the Congressional Budget Office's calculations miss an important reality. As the government's debt and deficits rise, the economy will slow down—an effect not taken into account by the CBO. So, for instance, when the CBO says that federal spending for health-care programs will roughly double as a percentage of GDP in the next 25 years, it is probably being too optimistic. If debt keeps, rising, GDP will be much lower than the CBO estimates—which will mean that health care spending will be a much larger percentage of the overall economy.
Here's Bernanke on the effect of rising debt:
Sustained high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private investment and increase our debt to foreigners, with adverse long-run effects on U.S. output, incomes, and standards of living. Moreover, diminishing investor confidence that deficits will be brought under control would ultimately lead to sharply rising interest rates on government debt and, potentially, to broader financial turmoil. In a vicious circle, high and rising interest rates would cause debt-service payments on the federal debt to grow even faster, resulting in further increases in the debt-to-GDP ratio and making fiscal adjustment all the more difficult.
In short, the official estimates members of Congress hear from their budget office are under-estimating our dire economic predicament. If fiscal policy is not brought under control, things will be much, much worse

[panteno]

Official Congressional budget estimates understate the peril of rising debt, Fed chair Ben Bernanke told the Budget Committee on Capitol Hill today.
Warning that our nation's fiscal health has deteriorated appreciably since the onset of the financial crisis and the recession, Bernanke called upon lawmakers to confront the long term fiscal challenges sooner rather than later. If lawmakers don't confront them, they'll find themselves confronted by them.
From Bernanke's prepared remarks:
By definition, the unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the CBO outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government with debt, relative to national income, that is rising without limit. One way or the other, fiscal adjustments sufficient to stabilize the federal budget must occur at some point. The question is whether these adjustments will take place through a careful and deliberative process that weighs priorities and gives people adequate time to adjust to changes in government programs or tax policies, or whether the needed fiscal adjustments will come as a rapid and painful response to a looming or actual fiscal crisis.
Bernanke explained that the Congressional Budget Office's calculations miss an important reality. As the government's debt and deficits rise, the economy will slow down—an effect not taken into account by the CBO. So, for instance, when the CBO says that federal spending for health-care programs will roughly double as a percentage of GDP in the next 25 years, it is probably being too optimistic. If debt keeps, rising, GDP will be much lower than the CBO estimates—which will mean that health care spending will be a much larger percentage of the overall economy.
Here's Bernanke on the effect of rising debt:
Sustained high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private investment and increase our debt to foreigners, with adverse long-run effects on U.S. output, incomes, and standards of living. Moreover, diminishing investor confidence that deficits will be brought under control would ultimately lead to sharply rising interest rates on government debt and, potentially, to broader financial turmoil. In a vicious circle, high and rising interest rates would cause debt-service payments on the federal debt to grow even faster, resulting in further increases in the debt-to-GDP ratio and making fiscal adjustment all the more difficult.
In short, the official estimates members of Congress hear from their budget office are under-estimating our dire economic predicament. If fiscal policy is not brought under control, things will be much, much worse

Just can't get off Bush can ya? Obama caused trillions in NEW debt, which is the focus of our ire. Also, it doesn't help that Obama is...

[deangelo51]

Because deficits were FALLING under Bush/GOP control and resumed CLIMBING only AFTER Obama and friends got the wheel and forced it to happen. LAST Bush/GOP deficit = $0.16 trillion. I realize you have NO GUESS what it is now: it's BIGGER.

Here's something YOU are literally 100% certain you CANNOT do: Cite ANY Congressional Democrat in the last 100 years who voted for less spending than ANY Republican in his session. I'll make it easier: Cite ANY Democrat in the last 100 years who voted for less than 150% of the LARGEST GOP proposal during his session. You can't do that, either. The FACT OF HISTORY is that ALL Republican budget proposals eventually reach surplus and ALL Democrat budget proposals REQUIRE PERPETUAL debt INCREASE. No exceptions. You, for one, are absolutely CERTAIN you cannot find one.

[sceley]

Obama has spent more then all the presidents put together. Thats how. Facts elude you somehow.

[stephon14]

Republicans obviously don't believe in the concept of "cumulative debt". They think Obama really had a CHOICE whether or not to continue spending on the policies and programs the Bush administration put in place.
They also seem to forget that the day Obama walked into office, the deficit was already over $1 Trillion.

They expect us to believe that they would have cheered if Obama has said, during his inauguration speech, "We're broke, therefore I am ordering an immediate end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the immediate repeal of the Bush Tax cuts, TARP, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind. We just can't afford those luxuries any longer."

And if you do believe that, I have some toxic mortgages to sell you.

[tahmelapachme33]

It is a typical Republican tactic to blame the Democrats for problems that Republicans themselves have created. They are very vocal and loud in spreading their propaganda.

If the country had continued with the Clinton budget policies, we might have paid off the national debt by now. Clinton raised taxes, without a single Republican vote in Congress. Clinton also cut spending. Republicans were furious about both because of course they did not agree with the areas in which Clinton made cuts.

Nevertheless, Clinton balanced the federal budget and produced surpluses for four years straight. Then came Bush. The results of the Bush tax cuts and incredible spending were huge federal budget deficits for each and every year of the Bush presidency.

Then the economy crashed. The crash was due in large part to the Republican policies of lax oversight, laissez faire and deregulation.

Republicans have tried to shift the blame for the results of their bad policies onto President Obama. President Obama's first and most important task was to turn around the direction of a quickly sinking economy. His proposals were opposed by Republicans before he even took office.

We know that the Bush policies created the huge deficits, exploded the debt and crashed the economy. Republican efforts have been to regain power. In order to do so they have attacked President Obama for the bad results of their bad policies. Every attempt that he has made to address the problems has been met with fierce and unreasoning resistance.

Republicans are hoping that people suffer from amnesia.

[bret11]

I'm sorry, anyone with half a brain knows this started much further back then the bush administration. Did he contribute to the issue, Yes. Has the current administration done anything to curb the spending, put us on a path for a debt-less future? No, he has not only contributed to the debt but has already added more in his first three years then Bush did in eight.

[patwin87]

Your the standard liberal who thinks the government should coddle you from craddle to grave and other people should pay for it.

You're a loser.