National debt up more in 3 years under BHO than 8 under Bush

[CunningStunts]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

BHO supporters, I'm interested to hear the justification, and what we got for all the money he and Congress have spent in the last 3 years. :lurk:

 

[lurkingdirk]

There are quite a few threads about this already. These numbers need to be scrutinized a little bit more.

 

[xfire]

http://reaganbushdebt.org/

The Current ReaganBush Debt is:
$14,645,335,582,138.50
which means that in a total of 20 years,
these three presidents have led to the creation of
94.00%
of the entire national debt
in only 8.4746% of the 236 years of the existence of the United States of America.

 

[CunningStunts]

There are quite a few threads about this already. These numbers need to be scrutinized a little bit more.

The numbers are from the Treasury Dept... not sure who would have more accurate figures than them....

 

[lurkingdirk]

The numbers are from the Treasury Dept... not sure who would have more accurate figures than them....

It's the interpretation, the accounting for inflation, and the like. Sheer numbers are not an accurate reflection of the way things are. The value of the dollar fluctuates, America's credit rating with foreign nations fluctuates, and blah blah blah blah. I'm certainly no expert, but if someone comes at me with straight numbers with no interpretation/historic thought put into them, I call bullshit.

For example, President Obama inherited two very costly wars from President Bush. Do we count the money spent on those wars President Obama's contribution to the national debt his, or do they still tally in President Bush's column? Disassociating that debt from President Bush seems ludicrous, as it was his administration that involved us in those wars. I'm laying no blame here, nor am I making any type of evaluative statement. Wars started by one administration and inherited by another make figures like this nearly impossible to calculate to anyone's satisfaction.

Just some thoughts. I'm extremely disappointed with how President Obama's administration has engaged in extreme deficit spending. I had hoped for better.

:2 cents:

 

[D-rock]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

BHO supporters, I'm interested to hear the justification, and what we got for all the money he and Congress have spent in the last 3 years. :lurk:

I'm not a BHO supporter, but I would say that his spending bolstering the economy so at least we have some semblance of a change to recover instead of the US economy catastrophically failing almost immediately back when he started spending would be at least a decent justification.

 

[Mayhem]

See kids, we had this little thing called a "Financial Meltdown of Biblical Proportions". As such, we had to spend money that we wouldn't have otherwise spent had we not had a "Financial Meltdown of Biblical Proportions". But since we did have a "Financial Meltdown of Biblical Proportions", that's where all this additional debt came from. Get over it and get back to work.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Debt and deficit are two completely different things…… much of the public debt is because of interest rates paid on previous deficits.

EVERY SINGLE BUDGET has had smaller deficits than the previous year's budget under the current Presidency. Every single one. Budgetary spending is largely structural; much of the spending Obama has had to deal with was enacted under previous administrations.

Either mix in an Econ class or just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[PirateKing]

I think the above posts provide sufficient justification. Anything else? Maybe you'd like to bring up the birth certificate bullshit again.

 

[abejarano12]

Just a reminder. When W. came in to office we had a Budget surplus by April it was gone, banks and Wall street started screwing over the people.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

W. fucked the country up so bad that Obama has had no choice but to spend, spend, spend in order to keep Americans working and stimulate the economy. Plus W. left two unsettled war fronts that are a huge drain to our assets. What we have done ladies and gentleman is bought our way out of another great depression we need to quit trying to affix blame and start to being Americans who want to help America for the good of all Americans.

 

[nightwanker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

 

[Member2019]

Sorry, but Obama's policies increased the debt more than W.'s leftovers did. Look at all we are spending on now!

And remember, W. walked into his first recession. People are in such denial over that, but the end of 2000 was not a good economy. True, W. made it worse, far worse with the second recession, but the surplus was nose diving at the end of 2000.

Clinton's own OMB stated such, for those of us who actually read them.

Also remember that it wasn't just Clinton, but the Republican Congress. I blame both equally. Outsourcing, H1B Visa and other non-sense started under the Clinton-Republican Congress. It took about 5 years but the bubble burst on that one.

In reality, Clinton-Republicans, W.-Republicans, and Obama-Democrats are all to blame for our current situation. Trying to single one leader out is self-defeating. They are all to blame. Even the housing market non-sense started with the Republican Congress in 1996.

The only additional blame I give to W. is Iraq. That was his call. Of course, it doesn't explain the rest of the budget, just a small percentage of it (sorry, truth). As far as Afghanistan, Obama has been for that war since Day 1, just like W.

The only US politician who has been for non-interference has been Ron Paul.

 

[xfire]

Look at all we are spending on now!

What all are we spending on now?

 

[Straight Shooter]

See kids, we had this little thing called a "Financial Meltdown of Biblical Proportions". As such, we had to spend money that we wouldn't have otherwise spent had we not had a "Financial Meltdown of Biblical Proportions". But since we did have a "Financial Meltdown of Biblical Proportions", that's where all this additional debt came from. Get over it and get back to work.

:dito:Sometimes you have to spend money to make money

 

[xfire]

It doesn't help that U.S. companies are hoarding cash. According to the Wall Street Journal- "U.S. companies are holding more cash in the bank than at any point on record, underscoring persistent worries about financial markets and about the sustainability of the economic recovery." Wealth disparity in this country is sickening.

 

[abrogate]

It's the interpretation, the accounting for inflation, and the like. Sheer numbers are not an accurate reflection of the way things are. The value of the dollar fluctuates, America's credit rating with foreign nations fluctuates, and blah blah blah blah. I'm certainly no expert, but if someone comes at me with straight numbers with no interpretation/historic thought put into them, I call bullshit.

For example, President Obama inherited two very costly wars from President Bush. Do we count the money spent on those wars President Obama's contribution to the national debt his, or do they still tally in President Bush's column? Disassociating that debt from President Bush seems ludicrous, as it was his administration that involved us in those wars. I'm laying no blame here, nor am I making any type of evaluative statement. Wars started by one administration and inherited by another make figures like this nearly impossible to calculate to anyone's satisfaction.

Just some thoughts. I'm extremely disappointed with how President Obama's administration has engaged in extreme deficit spending. I had hoped for better.

:2 cents:

In my opinion, I think you're making sense.

Bush's wars were a huge mistake. It costs lives with little gain and they were unfunded. I think I read that they are costing something like 3-4 Trillion. The full burden, regardless of how it winds down should be tagged as a result of Bush.

I couldn't agree more with you about offering the numbers without analysis. Not that I would probably agree with most analysis. Candidly, I find most analysis looking to either hammer the Republicans or Democrats without offering real insight. Whenever this topic comes up one blind man always insinuating that Obama is racking up needless debt completely on his own accord. The other blind man jumps in and says the same thing about Reagan and the other Bush with the same insinuation. (I'll see if someone does that)

I hold a grudge against the latest Bush because I actually voted for him. I feel betrayed.

I understand the pressures (to the point that I know they exist) that Obama is under, but I'm expecting a bit more for this man that I voted for as well. The war funds are a good example. If you have an unfunded war, then (intelligently) look to stop the war, why would you say that the funds that aren't accounted for are savings and look to spend it elsewhere?

I call bullshit too. On the partisan finger pointing.

 

[accountantNOT]

Sorry, but Obama's policies increased the debt more than W.'s leftovers did. Look at all we are spending on now!

Please put a name to these policies and the debt incurred from them, I am pretty sure that after mentioning the stimulus you will have a tough time zeroing on these so called policies in context of the trillions we are talking about.

And remember, W. walked into his first recession. People are in such denial over that, but the end of 2000 was not a good economy. True, W. made it worse, far worse with the second recession, but the surplus was nose diving at the end of 2000.

Wrong again, the recession started few months AFTER Bush got into office and NBER labelled it as a MILD recession, nothing like the 2007-09 one.

Clinton's own OMB stated such, for those of us who actually read them.

Its a conspiracy then?

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Also remember that it wasn't just Clinton, but the Republican Congress. I blame both equally. Outsourcing, H1B Visa and other non-sense started under the Clinton-Republican Congress. It took about 5 years but the bubble burst on that one.

Clinton increased top marginal rates before Republicans won the mid-term elections.

The only additional blame I give to W. is Iraq. That was his call. Of course, it doesn't explain the rest of the budget, just a small percentage of it (sorry, truth). As far as Afghanistan, Obama has been for that war since Day 1, just like W.

Look up Medicare Part D and the Bush tax cuts for starters.

 

[accountantNOT]

In my opinion, I think you're making sense.

Bush's wars were a huge mistake. It costs lives with little gain and they were unfunded. I think I read that they are costing something like 3-4 Trillion. The full burden, regardless of how it winds down should be tagged as a result of Bush.

I couldn't agree more with you about offering the numbers without analysis. Not that I would probably agree with most analysis. Candidly, I find most analysis looking to either hammer the Republicans or Democrats without offering real insight. Whenever this topic comes up one blind man always insinuating that Obama is racking up needless debt completely on his own accord. The other blind man jumps in and says the same thing about Reagan and the other Bush with the same insinuation. (I'll see if someone does that)

I hold a grudge against the latest Bush because I actually voted for him. I feel betrayed.

I understand the pressures (to the point that I know they exist) that Obama is under, but I'm expecting a bit more for this man that I voted for as well. The war funds are a good example. If you have an unfunded war, then (intelligently) look to stop the war, why would you say that the funds that aren't accounted for are savings and look to spend it elsewhere?

I call bullshit too. On the partisan finger pointing.

Few things, it was not just the wars that caused the debt explosion, it was the tax cuts, unpaid entitlements and a deficits don't matter philosophy.

Here is a breakdown

In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected under a current law baseline that the federal government would erase its debt in 2006. By 2011, the U.S. government would be $2.3 trillion in the black.

The reality, of course, has turned out to be far different: the U.S. will likely owe $10.4 trillion this year, its largest debt relative to the economy since 1950.

What caused this $12.7 trillion shift? This fiscal fact sheet by the non-partisan Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative — building on an earlier analysis published in No Silver Bullet: Paths for Reducing the Federal Debt — shows that the main drivers of the debt, by far, are the tax cuts and spending increases enacted since 2001. However, no single piece of legislation explains the majority of the debt growth relative

Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases. Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.

Legislative drivers can be further broken down using CBO cost estimates for six high-profile laws enacted over the last 10 years as well as the cost of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

1. The 2001/2003 tax cuts (Republican President + Republican Congress)
2. The overseas operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; (Republican President + Republican Congress for Iraq War, Both Parties for Afghanistan war)
3. Medicare Part D (Republican President + Republican Congress)
4. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)(Republican President + Both Parties in Congress)
5. The 2009 stimulus (Democratic President + Democratic Congress)
6. The December 2010 tax legislation. (Democratic President + Both Parties in Congress)

The excess growth in publicly-held federal debt beyond 2001 expectations has been the result of a variety of factors. However, new legislation enacted since January 2001 has been responsible for two-thirds of the debt growth. In the new legislation, roughly three dollars of new spending has been enacted for every two dollars in tax cuts between 2001 and 2011. No single policy or piece of legislation, however, is overwhelmingly responsible for the $12.7 trillion shift in CBO’s debt projections for 2011 that occurred between January 2001 and March 2011.

Full Report
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...ic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf

So if you take a look above, you will find that other than the stimulus which was TEMPORARY, there has been no policy changes under Obama that are driving the debt we are seeing now. Infact if you read the CBO recent report, the single biggest cause for the debt is still the Bush tax cuts which were extended for two years after Republicans threatened to block everything unless it's extended for the Top 1%.

Here is spending and revenue picture, spending is coming down however revenues have been stagnating and will continue to do so with so many tax cuts.

 

[accountantNOT]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

BHO supporters, I'm interested to hear the justification, and what we got for all the money he and Congress have spent in the last 3 years. :lurk:

Did you actually read the CBO report or just ignored the rest of it because of the headline? So what policies are driving the debt, did you see anything about the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D etc or are you one of those guys who think that the policies enacted during a President's term end when they get out of office.