Will the U.S. go bankrupt if Obama is reelected?

craigdressler · Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:28 pm

Since he took office just three years ago, Obama has added five trillion in new debt while the value of the U.S. dollar has plummeted. With no end in sight will the U.S. go the way of Greece and probably the Euro and go bankrupt? It certainly appears to be a real possibility in the near future if Obama is reelected.

President Camacho · Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:50 pm

What power does the president have with regards to the budget? I thought that the legislative branch of the government was responsible for passing a budget. If you're upset you should write to your congressman. Are you very susceptible to fear mongering? You sound very scared. How do you feel about global warming? Do you have the same fear with regards to your world as you do for money? How much money do you make...? Answer me that and I'll tell you who you should vote for, with your bottom line in mind, and who you should be scared of but it won't have any effect. You're here to impress your point of view in a way that's meant to illicit an emotional response of indignation from like minded people.

How much money do you make and what is your business? Answer that and you'll answer who you should vote for.

This president is sooooooo middle of the road and has done nothing but compromise. He isn't a democrat, ask his base. If you're scared how sh*t is now, wait until you put a Newt or a Romney in charge of influencing public opinion and federal policy.... you're not scared of that?????

geo · Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:42 pm

It's overly simplistic to lay all the blame on the Obama administration. While Obama certainly has raised the bar for deficit spending, you have to assess the shape our country was in when he took office. Our course of deficit spending has spanned several presidencies and it will likely take several presidencies to get us back on track. I seriously doubt the next president, whether he/she is democrat or republican, is going to suddenly make things better. As Camacho pointed out, the president is only one man in a system of checks and balances (and fraud and corruption). One would think the GOP is more in tune with our current fiscal reality, but if you look at our long history of deficit spending, I doubt that the GOP will look any better than democrats. It's just not that simple.

giselle · Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:58 am


	geo wrote: I seriously doubt the next president, whether he/she is democrat or republican, is going to suddenly make things better.

Thanks for saying that, Geo. Pres Obama has his hands full, I think democratic governments are run by unelected senior bureaucrats, in all ways that matter, right up to the point of writing the speeches that the political 'leaders' mouth.

geo · Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:03 pm

giselle wrote:


	geo wrote: I seriously doubt the next president, whether he/she is democrat or republican, is going to suddenly make things better.

Thanks for saying that, Geo. Pres Obama has his hands full, I think democratic governments are run by unelected senior bureaucrats, in all ways that matter, right up to the point of writing the speeches that the political 'leaders' mouth.

You're right, Giselle. It's the whole system that needs reform. But for some reason, we fixate on our party of choice. I hear that all the time. We just have to get Obama out of office ASAP! As if a Republican, any Republican, is going to be a panacea. We must have very short memories.

Dexter · Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:25 pm


	geo wrote: We must have very short memories.

Ain't that the truth. The two parties are exactly the same when it comes to spending money. There's a slight difference in rhetoric -- the Republicans pretend to be in favor of fiscal discipline.

giselle · Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:01 pm


	geo wrote: I hear that all the time. We just have to get Obama out of office ASAP! As if a Republican, any Republican, is going to be a panacea. We must have very short memories.

Elections have a placebo effect - we vote and then we feel better, especially if the incumbent loses, because then we have created 'change' - we're not really sure why we feel better because we know voting is like taking a little, white sugar pill ... perhaps there's some vague psychological benefit resulting from exercising our democratic rights? It makes us feel slightly, if temporarily, empowered. Meanwhile, the real power is carefully guarded elsewhere, well away from the vagueries and risks of democratic politics.

JulianTheApostate · Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:45 am

Keep in mind the cause of the deficit. There was a budget deficit throughout the Bush administration, mainly because of the Bush tax cuts. The economic collapse, the worst since the Great Depression, made the deficit skyrocket for two reasons: less tax revenue and increased social spending due to more people needing help. That all was happening before Obama took office.

So, what different policies could have kept the deficit from becoming so large? If it weren't for Bush's tax cuts and the Iraq War, the US would have maintained the budget surplus that existed when Clinton left office. After Obama became President tax cuts in the stimulus package and the extension of the Bush tax cuts dropped revenue further, increasing the deficit. The US could pull out of Afghanistan or lower defense spending, but neither political party seems interested in doing that. The stimulus package did increase spending, though must economists believe that the recession would have gotten even worse without that spending. Cuts in social spending are another option, though such cuts would hurt the economic recovery in addition to the people losing the benefits of those spending.

DWill · Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:52 am

One thing happening that might be good news for the U.S. and a boost to morale, is that the model of the European welfare state has become tarnished. Our "backwardness" in not fully accepting that model may prove to be prescience. Greece is the extreme case, but other Euro nations, including the ones still considered to be in reasonable health, are needing to back off. We've long been envious of six weeks nationally-mandated vacation and other generous state benefits standard in Europe. But maybe we were always right in holding the line to the degree that we've been able to. Obviously, right now it's the health insurance fight that's raising more concerns about whether the country can afford BO's reforms, but it's just one more in a long chain of decisions that led us into doubts that we can remain solvent.

Kevin · Tue May 01, 2012 3:25 am

My answer to the question in the header is, Yes. A way to possibly avoid this from happening that I can see is to not elect Republicans or Democrats. But of course that's too extreme a solution! So instead how's about (really) taxing corporations? If that's considered too extreme an approach then perhaps we could nationalize them and solve it through an end-around! At the very least, we could consider ending and back-taxing, say, OIL SUBSIDIES. Welfare state indeed! And the military-industrial... haha no, let's continue on with the invasions carried out by our our brave citizens and the concentration of wealth approach the two parties, in cahoots with their industry friends (and former/future employers), have been herding us into these last 30+ years. I really don't see that much of a problem. Remember, the cause doesn't rest with the ones in power and the ones with money. It's through the ones without money and without power that the policies and standards that are ruining (well...) the world have been adopted. The problem is, the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much money. The problem is not the politicians, it's a substandard citizenry. Let's just move on!

Forum rules

Will the U.S. go bankrupt if Obama is reelected? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!