Its now official - Obama increased the national debt more in 3 years than Bush in 8

[McKinneyTXHusker]

(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency. The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

And, CBS news isn't some far right web blog. Do we need any further proof, that as many Republicans keep trying to say, "we have primarily a spending problem, not a taxing problem."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

[HuskerNCorpus]

It's still all Bush's fault.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Someone remind me again about how to edit the title of the thread - to add the space I left out?

(Never mind, figured it out! )

[huskrthill]

Someone remind me again about how to edit the title of the thread - to add the space I left out?

Just double click in the box where the thread title is on the main Cafe forum.

[RedRum]

This is like saying futility is better than incompetence.

[Carolina Husker]

I think it's safe to say both the Dems & Pubs have spending issues.

[HuZkurZ]

I think it's safe to say both the Dems & Pubs have spending issues.

True, only one sees that it needs to be curtailed.

[ChitownHusker]

Would quibble a little bit with your statement McKinney. We do have a revenue problem, but that doesn't mean we have a problem with our tax rates being too low. If you look at this chart, you can see how the last two recessions have killed total federal revenues coming in. The decline in revenues due to two financial crashes in one decade has probably been an even bigger driver of the deficit than uncontrolled federal spending. That said, you and I would probably reach the same conclusion from this fact: that the federal government needs to facilitate economic growth in order to generate more revenue, not increase taxes.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Would quibble a little bit with your statement McKinney. We do have a revenue problem, but that doesn't mean we have a problem with our tax rates being too low. If you look at this chart, you can see how the last two recessions have killed total federal revenues coming in. The decline in revenues due to two financial crashes in one decade has probably been an even bigger driver of the deficit than uncontrolled federal spending. That said, you and I would probably reach the same conclusion from this fact: that the federal government needs to facilitate economic growth in order to generate more revenue, not increase taxes.

Yes, Chi, I'd say we have little quibble, you just supplied a more detailed synopsis of the situation and what needs to be done.

[RedRum]

True, only one sees that it needs to be curtailed.

Sees is a strong word. Promises that they care about it deeply is more like it as promises can always be broken.

[FLA4NEB]

It isn't that we are taxed to little it is they spend to much. Cut the spending (reform entitlements, cut budgets), broaden the tax base (total tax overhaul that flattens and simplifies the code), increase private sector growth (cut regulatory red tape and code).