Its easy to rack up debt when you start with a trillion dollar deficit.Bush started with a balanced budget,there is no excuse for him doubling the national debt and turning a balanced budget into a trillion dollar deficit http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health The Bush Deficit Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate. By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending. In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them. Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html Whatâs also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obamaâs major expenses were temporary â the stimulus is over now â while Bushâs were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didnât just lower revenue for 10 years. Itâs clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.
He won't be able to spend discretionary spending as fast with a Republican controlled House but the Democraps are determined not to reform entitlements which means you are probably right. Entitlements are on course to bury us in debt. As Obama slows the economy the gap between revenue and non-discretionary spending is going to sky rocket.
You really don't understand the economics of the working family and the high health care costs, no you do, you're just being antagonistic. Mandatory insurance is the essence of individual responsibility don't you agree. It is no different than mandatory car insurance. We can have a dicussion on the best way to do it, but we both agree individual responsibility is what Obama care does.
LOL I didn't think you would, but that is exactly what it does. Maybe not in the best way, but nothing ever is the "best" way.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The premise behind mandatory auto insurance is that my driving can cause damage to other motorists while unavoidably driving in close proximity to each other. My getting sick doesn't necessarily have to affect anyone else. I can pay my own insurance premiums and then the insurance pays, I can pay for my own medical expenses directly without insurance. Or I can stay home and employ natural/home remedies or even just crawl into bed and die. Now granted, if I elect not to have medical insurance. But go to the hospital and run up bills I can't or won't pay. THEN it certainly effects others financially as the costs get passed on to those who do pay. But it doesn't have to be that way. I say, if someone elects not to have insurance, they either pay their medical bills or don't go the the doctor. The problem is our pussified bleeding hearts refuse to allow people to be responsible for their own decisions. Such as the "right to Choose" as to insure oneself or not.
Slowest growth? LMFAO, Hard to grow spending when your starting point is already spending more than any other President in history.