President Obama has spent more in three years than George Bush, two wars and all, spent in eight.
(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.
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds. (CBS News)
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame anything and everything to cover his profligate irresponsibility. Bush bears some of the blame, but Obama has done nothing to fix it. Were he a CEO, he would have been fired by now.
46 comments:
And Americans are just going merrily along as if a day of reckoning will not come.
Well, some of us not so "merrily."
Obama's spending? That's the pure stinky cheese. What contributed to the deficit?
1. The Bush tax cuts.
2. Putting the Iraq/Afghanistan fiascoes on the books.
3. The recession.
4. The stimulus.
Now two weren't even spending.
One is an expense that has more support among the fringe right than anyone else.
The fourth was the smallest of the group, was initiated during the Bush administration and was financed at a very low rate.
Now just what Obama was supposed to do is not well understood.
The fringe right would do something like cut food stamps even though food stamps have a multiplier which raises the money velocity in the economy unlike the upper income tax cuts.
We will soon come to the end of the road. No doubt we will end up speaking chinese.
I love watching the Obama worshipers defy reality to protect the messiah.
Obamaism is a religion.
So since one war is wrapped up Obama's budget should come down by your logic. It has not. Bush tax cuts kicked in years ago. How come they only caused big deficits for Obama years later, and not Bush at the time?
Get lost with your phony baloney, Ducky. It's unbecoming of you.
The last three presidents and their Congresses are all guilty. Let's throw all the schemers out!
IS it not true that the amount of debt run up by Obama in the first two years of his presidency exceeded that of all other presidents in our history combined?
That was averred by Sarah Palin and also by Rush Limbaugh, I know, but it would be good to have either verification, clarification or provable denial from a dispassionate, non-partisan, unimpeachable source -- IF any such source exists.
Since most people now seem to inhabit a parallel universe defined by one persuasion or its opposite, each claiming its own set of facts and figures, getting at Objective Truth seems to become more difficult with each passing day.
My crypto-Communist friends all seem delighted with Obama and remain passionately devoted to pursuing his "noble" objectives for the nation, while I remain horrified. There seems to be no hope of ever bridging the ever-widening chasm between us.
~ FreeThinke
Not much of a retort, Silverfiddle. It's becoming more difficult to determine if you are concerned with policy issues or simple Obama hatred.
Notice that conservatives on fire fails stops before naming Saint Ronnie Raygun as a huge deficit generator.
"Just as the scorpion threatened by fire shoots its own venom into itself, democracy encircled by the flames of free-market economics and the new world order pumps the searing venom of corruption into its veins."
---- Some pretty smart guy
I rec'd this email yesterday...it's got a lot to think about; too bad most people won't consider anything but Bush-hate and Obama-worship...
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was
actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of
Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over
the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in
2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until
Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the
omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the
fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in
Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama,
who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a
nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
By the way, SF>..my netflix CDs of Jesus of Nazareth arrived today...
am looking forward to watching.
A CEO? He hasn't even held a job as at McDonalds. No experience at anything. You have to have a diseased brain to support this no talent marxist moocher imbecile.
FreeThinke,
Obama Has Now Increased Debt More than All Presidents from George Washington Through George H.W. Bush Combined
in pictures
Z,
Remember the stock market tanked from 14,000+ and has not returned since on October 1, 2007 - the first day of the federal budget fiscal year under Democrat-controlled Congress' new financial regulations.
That's the day everyone got out of the stock market while they could.
Bush reduced the cushion of capital the two companies have been required to hold since 2004, enabling the companies to invest several hundred billion more in home loans. In essence, the companies are being allowed to take billions of dollars that had been used as a reserve against possible further losses and invest that money in the housing market.
That's right , z, Chucklenuts had F&F take a few hundred billion of capital reserves to purchase assets which were collapsing in price.
It was a terrible gamble and it failed miserably.
"Additional capital will enable the companies to help more homeowners and will strengthen the underlying fundamentals of the mortgage market."
- Treasury Secretary Paulson
Didn't work.
So tell us again how the Chucklenuts administration didn't belly up to the roulette wheel like everyone else, z.
Come one, let's have your best game on an uncensored forum. Bring it.
No honest, respectful, productive discussion is possible with you Ducky, as long as you insist on denying that you're a blithering imbecile.
Why don't you deal with the game Z brought you. punk?
Silver, tsk... really?
No decent, common, everyday American likes the massive federal debt, let alone it's structure.
No liberal, conservative, libertarian, environmentalist, evangelical, objectivist, you name 'em, most people hate it.
But how do we deal with it?
To simply proclaim, "This is Obama's debt! See!!! It is his!!! All the world is a vacuum and this man, Barack Hussein Obama, is the vortex!!!" is retarded. But I guess it gets hits, right?
Obama kept the Bush tax rates, he hasn't impacted the courts or beyond. Most things are still in order. Nothing has really changed. Obama talks about big change, but things haven't changed that much.
Obama can't change things that much.
That's why it's loony to connect liberal politics with actual governance in America today. Liberals have very little power, are a minority, and can't be blamed for the economic circumstances we have today. You'd have to be either ignorant, or someone who takes advantage of the sleazy system we have today to blame "liberal politics" for much of anything at all in your life.
JMJ
Four things:
Z, that's a dandy post. I enjoyed reading it, and tend to believe it, but are there any "official" sources that corroborate it? It would be very helpful if we could see them.
2. Thanks for that much corroboration of what I suggested, Beamish. Numbers may not "lie" exactly, but they can be manipulated and used in ways to create false impressions. The last I heard our total debt will reach TWENTY-TRILLION dollars in the not-too-distant future. How much more hot air could possibly be put in the USA "Balloon" before it bursts into shreds and falls lifeless to the ground?
3. The stock market, indeed, plunged precipitously almost immediately after the D'Rats took control of congress in the final two years of the GWB administration, and real estate values were suddenly cut in half in that same time frame. HOWEVER, the stock market has recovered nicely and is now back above 13,000, and seems headed still further upward. FYI: I stayed in the market, and because I'm very conservatively invested for the long haul, and because I have excellent money managers, I've lost less than 18% of what I had at the peak just before the crash. The only area where I've taken a really bad hit has been in real estate. Every one I know -- including doctors, lawyers, accountants, rich retirees, and bank presidents has been blindsided by the fallout from Dodd-Frank's indecent legislative initiatives.
4. How many different ways can we spell CLOWARD-PIVEN? Could anyone still seriously doubt Obama's intentions to implement their strategy?
~ FreeThinke
Ducky: I'm dealing in facts.
If you can't handle it get lost, and spare us the "criticism of Obama is racism" leftist agitprop.
Jersey: I am not absolving Bush, Reagan or anyone who came before Obama. Only mentioning that he has racked up more debt than all other presidents combined. That is a salient point this election season.
Obama has spent 10X what Reagan spent but we have nothing to show for it.
FY 2009 Administration funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan: $155 Billion (Bush and Obama)
FY 2010 Administration funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan: $165.1 Billion (Obama)
FY 2011 Administration funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan: $167.9 Billion (Obama)
FY 2012 Administration request for the Iraq War and Afghanistan: $131.4 Billion (Obama)
You miss a decimal point somewhere Ducky?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.p
OBAMA'S FIRST THREE YEARS
FY 2010 OBAMA DEFICIT $1293 Billion
FY 2011 OBAMA DEFICIT $1300 Billion
FY 2012 OBAMA DEFICIT $1327 Billion
Oh and for reference:
BUSH'S FIRST THREE YEARS
FY 2002 BUSH DEFICIT $157 Billion
FY 2003 BUSH DEFICIT $378 Billion
FY 2004 BUSH DEFICIT $412 Billion
So OBAMA has spent more in each year as Bush spent in his first three combined.
Not to me unfair, allow me to continue:
FY 2005 BUSH DEFICIT $318 Billion
FY 2006 BUSH DEFICIT $248 Billion
FY 2007 BUSH DEFICIT $161 Billion
FY 2008 BUSH DEFICIT $458 Billion
FY 2009 BUSH DEFICIT $1400 Billion
So in eight years Bush spent 3532 Billion but Obama spent 3920 in only 3.
Obama's Burn Rate is three times higher than Bush's... and if elected to another term we can well expect >10 TRILLION in deficit spending over two terms.
Cause honestly, he doesn't seem to be slowing down much.
Since Afghanistan has been running since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, I dont really think you can blame the war... unless perhaps you think Obama has escalated it on a massive scale.
Obama's 2011 budget spent a trillion more on entitlements than defense.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123260736
Funny how Defense is characterized as "discretionary" but entitlements are characterized as "mandatory".
Ain't that BACKASSWARDS?
Cheers!
Silver, he racked up that debt immediately following the worst economic collapse in 77 years.
Do you think that isn't the case?
WTF man.
JMJ
Okay JMJ... according to his own website:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
He's spent 750 Billion.
We've already established he's spent 464 Billion on the war.
Where'd the other 2706 Billion go? In a change bowl on his dresser?
Bush never put 2 wars, the tax breaks for the wealthy or Medicaid part D on the budget. Obama did the right thing as did. So now you liars try to point finders at him for it. Losers!
Bush: $5.8T
Obama: $1.3T
Newly found Reagan Journal:
"The Republican party today merely just uses God as a means to get votes, and I don’t believe Jesus would want to be used as a marketing tool. I regret my decision to become Republican and if I had to do it all over again I would have remained in the Democratic party and ran on their ticket. They seem to instill the core values I believe in, such as a collective philosophy. I thought for a while the Democrats left me, because we used to agree on so much, it turns out that I did indeed leave them, and I would do anything to take it all back. Now as I sit here as an old man, I can only imagine, “what if…”"
http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/25/newly-found-reagan-journal-reveals-the-former-president-regretted-becoming-republican/
LOLOLLLLL!!!!!
Liberalman: Read it and weep!
Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.
Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.
FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience.
Can't skip the fine print, in this case a CLEARLY MARKED TAB LABELED SATIRE DISCLAIMER!
BTW, The Democrats not only left Reagan, the Democratic Party left the Democrats! It's a pity they don't have the balls to be honest socialists.
You people are seriously misinformed.
Supplementary budget acts are Acts of Congress and are definitely ON THE RECORD.
Despite whatever fantasy world you live in, neither Obama nor Bush had a fleet of unicorns shitting money out their asses.
There is no money OFF THE RECORD.
Oh, and did you see this one liberalmann?
"There's Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself, And Also Me, The Ghost Of Franklin Delano Roosevelt"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/theres-nothing-to-fear-but-fear-itself-and-also-me,11467/
ROFLMAO
But I suppose you also bought into the Free Wood Post top headline:
Santorum: "If Total Abstinence Seems Unreasonable, Try Dry Humping".
Scary thing is he's probably old enough to vote... well that explains 2008!
Cheers!
viburnum, Libdude left that comment about Reagan at my place, too...we straightened him out, reminding him that Reagan died in 2004 and this was 'written' in 2002! SO, he couldn't have done it because he was way too far gone with Alzheimers.
Anyway...here he is posting it again.
And yes, it's clearly marked satire but let's let the little lib have his fun :-)
Z: "Libdude left that comment about Reagan at my place, too..."
Yes, I saw that. I've noticed on several occasions that he seems make the rounds, generally depositing the same mindless gratuitous insults at a number of conservative sites. Most likely to spare himself the trouble of actually having to read, comprehend, and comment on topic.
"we straightened him out, reminding him that Reagan died in 2004 and this was 'written' in 2002!"
True, but his taking that into consideration would necessitate believing him capable of both perspicacity and reason, and if that were the case he wouldn't be Liberalmann. ;-)
"...let's let the little lib have his fun :-) "
Without definitive proof, I would hesitate to think that he actually knew it to be satirical.
I see that Liberalmann is copying and pasting his spam comment about Ronald Reagan at various blogs. The comment appeared at my place too. I answered it.
In addition to being a spammer, Liberlmann either suffers from dementia or is on the crack pipe -- or both.
At no time did I say criticism of Obama is racism, Silverfiddle.
What you are incapable of doing is seeing the problem as the culmination of the groundwork started by Nixon, reinforced by Raygun and brought to fruition by Clintoon and Chucklenuts.
There is nothing unusual about Obummer but you seem to feel his replacement is going to resolve the crony capitalism issue.
Whether it is willful or not you won't take a comprehensive view and you are especially loath to have anything sully the fringe right's worship of the moron St. Ronnie Raygun.
Yeah, you state facts but you also strip context.
I can't help it if you can't face facts, Ducky. We all know the context, and never have I put it all on Obama.
He's just taken waste and political fraud via the US Treasury to new heights, and that's hard to do after Bush and Dirty Hank Paulson.
Yeah, that's a frightening thought.
It's a geometric progression.
It's a geometric progression.
Precisely what I was thinking
I suspect Obama and his craven followers see this as an accomplishment, the more they spend on stupid government programs the better is what they think.
"Were he a CEO, he would have been fired by now."
And tossed in a goal.
We refuse to tax ourselves, to pay our bills, so of course our debt is growing.
Seems Republican philosophy of cutting taxes without cutting spending has done its job over 30 years.
Thanks for the debt Republicans.
Republican philosophy? You haven't been paying attention. This is a bi-partisan problem, and Obama and the Pelosicrats have strapped rockets to it.
I suggest you put down the hopium pipe and expand your sources beyond Daily Kook and MSLSD.
Fine, you blame 16 trillion debt on Obama and stick your head in the sand about who is responsible.
Maybe it's not their philosophy, but is was their actions over 30 years. Their cut taxes, but not cut spending actions built the debt.
Wars not on budget, drug plan not paid for, etc., etc.
Facts, not talking points.
Yes, and these are the stark facts. Obama didn't start it, but he is kicking the reckless spending into warp speed. No denying that. Makes Bush's deficits seem downright skin-flinty.
And if you want to talk facts, we need to go back a little further than 30 years to get at the root of the problem. Andrew Jackson was the last president to wipe out the national debt.
Drop your partisan blinders and seek the truth.
You are the one being partisan, if all you can do is blame Obama.
Going by the facts is not partisan. It sounds that way to you because the Republicans are at fault.
Unlike you, I have presented actual facts. Also, I have not just blamed Obama. There is plenty of blame to go around, and the GOP gets half, imho.
Here's something for you to ponder. In good times and bad, high taxation and low taxation, revenue to the treasury has historically and stubbornly stuck to around 17% of GDP.
Seems to me a smart government would budget its activities around that.
Not my fault you don't know the facts, look them up. Blaming Obama for all the debt, is not a fact, but you now call it Obama's debt.
This is a one generation (30 years) debt. Maybe we should raise taxes on this generation and pay off their debt before they die. Seems only fair since they built the 16 trillion (and growing) debt.
Oh ya, that would go against the talking point of not raising taxes, even if that destroys our government, because that's what most conservatives would prefer to do. They figure we can start from scratch after they destroy the government.
The whole thing is not Obama's debt. Just a third of it, which is an unprecedented amount for one man.
At this point, we're just talking past one another. You persist in leftist talking points, even in the face of plain fact I have laid out.
You are an exemplar liberal democrat and an ideal Obama voter.
What Democrats, or anyone, is talking about raising taxes enough to pay off a 16 trillion dollar debt? Talking points? Your defense is a weak dodge by a weak mind.
So Bd alias Liberalmann has gone underground and is now posting without a signature. How incredibly jejune, transparent and unimpressive!
The business so many indulge in -- not just Bd and Ducky -- of never fully reading what others have contributed or showing any acknowledgement, comprehension or curiosity, but instead raging on fighting straw men of their own fashioning makes blogging the tiresome, unnecessarily rude, stupidly contentious phenomenon it too often is.
The conservative-libertarian elements here have fully acknowledged, documented and condemned the copious contributions Republican failed policies have made to the fiscal and moral crises we face. Those elements have also demonstrated that whatever failings the Republicans have made have been CONTINUED and astonishingly AUGMENTED under the present administration.
BOTH parties were infected with the same disease decades ago. The only difference between them is that the Democrats will kill us off three times faster than the Republicans.
But BOTH parties have us headed in a bee line for the rocks.
Anyone who has serious, substantive ideas based on the Constitution, a knowledge of history and sound principles of logic and common sense is dubbed and treated as a member of the lunatic fringe by The Establishment.
It's The Establishment, stupid.
~ FreeThinke
FT: I think this Anon is new. He doesn't use foul language and he almost makes sense...
@Your defense is a weak dodge by a weak mind.
Defense? I'm not defending anything. I'm talking about debt, and Paul Ryan is the only one who has even a semblance of a plan to attack it. Meanwhile, Obama proposes to put us in debt another $1.5 trillion this year...
Post a Comment