You are here

Log in or register to post comments
soulful.terrain
soulful.terrain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 22 2010 - 12:15pm
Obama's now borrowed more than all Presidents from G.Washington to W.Bush

From CNS News: 

 The federal government has now borrowed more money during Barack Obama’s time as president than it did in the period lasting from the time President George Washington took the oath office until July 2, 2001, more than five months into the first term of President George W. Bush.

At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury. At the close of business this Thursday, it stood at $16,323,083,449,604.98.

That means the debt has increased $5,696,206,400,691.90 during Obama’s presidency.

On July 2, 2001, more than five months after President George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was $5,693,220,327,798.14, according to the Treasury. By the close of business on July 3, 2001, it had risen to 5,698,195,769,465.40. Since then, the debt has never again dropped below $5,696,206,400,691.90—the amount it has increased in less than one full term of Obama.

(Between late 1999 and the middle of 2001, as federal revenues sometimes exceeded expenditures, the debt fluctuated back and forth over the $5.696 trillion mark--only to finally pass that threshold, without retrenching, between July 2 and 3, 2001.)

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner suggested that Congress give President Obama the unilateral authority to lift the limit on the national debt.

The Census Bureau estimated in September that there were 114,916,000 households in the United States. That means that the $5,696,206,400,691.90 the Obama administration has borrowed in the name of U.S. taxpayers now equals about $49,568 per household.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Yep

We each are going to buy a General Motors car or truck and we will never see it.  That is what these dumb fucks have done to us.  $49,568 would buy an entry level turntable.  Looks like we are shit out luck and fucked up the ass by a bunch of brothers in the hood that will be dead from homocide before they are thirty because stomach gunshot wounds won't be covered under the piece of shit healthcare coverage they were forced to buy with their dope money.  

soulful.terrain
soulful.terrain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 22 2010 - 12:15pm
obamazombies
Lamont Sanford wrote:

We each are going to buy a General Motors car or truck and we will never see it.  That is what these dumb fucks have done to us.  $49,568 would buy an entry level turntable.  Looks like we are shit out luck and fucked up the ass by a bunch of brothers in the hood that will be dead from homocide before they are thirty because stomach gunshot wounds won't be covered under the piece of shit healthcare coverage they were forced to buy with their dope money.  

In Obama's Orwellian new speak, that would be the virtuous, holy inner city black youth that have been economically disenfranchised by the privilaged white thieving millionaires and billionaires.

But, I like your realistic description better.

What these mindless tools for socialism can't grasp is the fact that over 82% of all the wealth in this country exists within the middle class NOT with "millionaires and billionaires".

The millionaire and billionaire bullshit is nothing more than a vehicle to confiscate more money from the so-called middle class. i actually hate terms like 'middle class' because of its marxist roots. but hey, this is Ameritopia.

So another new Orwellian Obama new speak vernacular re-defines millionaires and billionaires as those making $250,001. But the obama worshipper is too fucking stupid to know that $250,000 is not a million or a billion dollars.

The good news is that the Obamazombies will go down with the rest of us and we can humiliate them while they are standing in line outside the social security offices and area food banks demanding their 'fair share'.

 

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
Fuzzy math? National Debt was

$10,626,877,048,913.08 before Obama is in office. The amount attributed to the time during the G. Washington to G.W. Bush administrations.

$16,323,083,449,604.98 as of 12-6-2012.

$5,696,206,400,691.90 the amount attributable to the time during the Obama administration.

How is $5,696,206,400,691.90 more than $10,626,877,048,913.08?

Doesn't this mean G.W. Bush was responsible for at least $4,928,681,300,000.00? As if one can really attribute all of it to just the administration.

"On January 20, 2001; the same day of George W. Bush's inauguration into office, the national debt of the United States was 5.7 trillion dollars, and by the end of his run in office (January 19, 2009) it was at 10.6 trillion dollars." U.S. Department of Treasury

The national debt increased 86.6% during eight years of the G.W. Bush administration.

The national debt increased by 53.6% during three years and eleven months of the Barack Obama administration.

I don't know, I was never too good at math anyways.

soulful.terrain
soulful.terrain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 22 2010 - 12:15pm
Good question

 

Good question jackfish.

It is true that W. Bush was a big spender and rightly criticized as he should have been for the TARP legislation, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc;

But here is the difference:

There was a huge surplus of funding that existed when Bush took office in 2000. When he spent that surplus, he wasn't building on a debt, he was spending money he already had. Consider this; if you have a large sum of money in your wallet it's not really considered irresponsible to go on a bit of a spending spree, right? Now when you're on that spending spree it's normal to lose track of how much money you have in your bank and start using your credit card right? Now here's where Obama is screwing up. When you get the bill for your spending spree and you realize all your money is gone and you're massively in debt, you need to put a immediate stop to your reckless spending and start cutting costs. Instead we have a president who is so-called 'reforming' healthcare, massively expanding the entitlement state while it is collapsing simultaneously, and has obligated future generations to 17 trillion in unfunded liabilities and refuses listen to his Republican financial planners in the House. On top of that, Obama has largely ignored his debt commission panel that he formed in 2010. Hope this helps.

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
You mean that Bush was spending the money

Clinton left him? So Bush actually spent the Clinton surplus in addition to adding 4.9 trillion dollars to the national debt? WOW!

I think I'm getting it now.

But what was the real story on Clinton's surplus? In 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed:
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.

The national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.

I'd still like to know how $5,696,206,400,691.90 is more than $10,626,877,048,913.08?

soulful.terrain wrote:

"Instead we have a president who ... has obligated future generations to 17 trillion in unfunded liabilities"

Ahem! 5.7 trillion of that came during Obama's administration, not the entire 17 trillion. Now he's responsible for the entire national debt? Whew!

Its fun throwing around numbers and spewing rhetoric, until someone shows you are wrong.

The national debt more than doubled during the Reagan administration, and he is touted as a conservative hero?

soulful.terrain
soulful.terrain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 22 2010 - 12:15pm
oh really?
jackfish wrote:
soulful.terrain wrote:

"Instead we have a president who ... has obligated future generations to 17 trillion in unfunded liabilities"

Ahem! 5.7 trillion of that came during Obama's administration, not the entire 17 trillion. Now he's responsible for the entire national debt? Whew!

Its fun throwing around numbers and spewing rhetoric, until someone shows you are wrong.

The national debt more than doubled during the Reagan administration, and he is touted as a conservative hero?

You appear to be feeling somewhat giddy.. O.k. then jackfish...

You're obviously not familiar with the Senate Budget Committee's report on the long-term unfunded liabilities associated with Obamacare that will reach 17 trillion. Remember jackifish.....its law NOW. It has to be funded... funny, I though you would know that...you know, being good with numbers and such...

Oh by the way, here's some numbers from the Senate Budget Committee that uses the Obama administrations own numbers:

http://www.therightscoop.com/stunning-obamacare-creates-17-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

 

 As for you saying Reagan doubled the National debt..Where did you get that from? You libs were saying Reagan tripled the National debt?? So which one is it? Doubled or tripled?

You need a refresher course on Ronald Reagan:

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. This low debt figure came after Jimmy Carter cut military expenditures steeply during his tenure (1977-1981). And this was at a time of maximum danger. The Soviet Union still had a huge military. Reagan promised, if elected, to turn the US military around

In the last full year of Ronald Reagan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP.

In 1995 under Clinton, GDP was $7.4 trillion and debt was 67.1% In 2001, GDP was $10.2 trillion and debt was 56.5%.  By 2005, under George Bush, GDP was $12.64 trillion and debt had grown to 62.8%.

The numbers since 2007 have been: 2007 ($14.08 trillion, 64%), 2008 ($14.44 trillion, 69.15%) 2009 ($14.26 trillion, 83.3%) and 2010 $14.62 trillion, 94.3%). In April 2011, it has reached 100% of GDP.

Notice how little GDP growth there has been over the last four years – only about 4% – but how much the debt has increased by 45% as a percentage of GDP since 2008 (69% to 100% under Obama). Yet the media hammered Ronald Reagan for a 59% increase in eight years that included a huge victory over the Soviets. 

OK, so Obama said … “as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels…” And if you ever have heard about the 1980s, the liberal mantra always has been that “Reagan reduced tax rates on the rich and that caused the national debt to triple”.

That is nonsense. Here are the numbers again Mr. Numbers:

In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. In the last full year of Ronald Reagan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP.

So notice that the GDP increased by a whopping 82% over just 8 years under Reagan. That is a huge leap. Under Obama between 2008 and 2010, it increased only about 3%.

Reagan did cut taxes on “the rich” from 70% to 28%, a drop of 60%. By liberal accounting, that should have caused revenues to the government to fall by 60%. But revenues to the federal treasury went from $517 billion in 1980 to $991 billion in 1989, increasing by 91%. Wow! So indeed, tax cuts on the wealthy did what they always do – they produced economic growth. In 1921, cuts in the top rate from 63% to 25% produced The Roaring 1920s.

The liberals never, ever want you to know about the huge surge in the economy in the 1980s, and huge gains in employment, more than 20 million jobs. They only like to point out that during Reagan’s presidency the debt increased from $909 billion in 1980 when Reagan was elected to $2.857 trillion by 1989 when Reagan left office.  So they always say, “Reagan tripled the national debt because he lowered tax rates”.

Technically, they can say that that is true, that he tripled the debt. But if you consider the debt increase as a percentage of the whole national wealth (GDP) went from 32.6% to 51%, that is a 59% increase relative to the whole economy, not a 300% increase (tripling) like liberals say. And still, after defeating the Soviet Unionwith a huge military buildup, the final debt of the Reagan years was only about half (51% of GDP) of what it is today (100% of GDP).

Yet even this 59% increase in the debt was caused mostly by the Democrats in Congress. Here is how:

Reagan cut top tax rates which set off an economic boom, causing huge inflows to the treasury. He then spent some of that money on the military to defeat the Soviet Union– certainly some of the best-spent dollars in American history.

But at the same time, the heavily-Democrat Congress went on a wild spending spree after promising not to, like typical Democrats (the agreement was called TEFRA. You can search it on the internet to read about it). So it was not tax cuts that caused the debt – they caused the boom. And while military spending did cause the debt to rise somewhat, it was the Democrats’ massive spending that really caused the spike.

Yet Reagan policies have historically been blamed by Democrats like yourself and Obama ..and only for the bad things but never for the really big accomplishments which were a booming economy and, most significantly, the defeat of Soviet communism.

So you see jackfish, Reagan was a solid Conservative and he didn't start WWIII like all the liberals said he would prior to his 1980 Republican nomination in an attempt to scare Americans into not voting for him, Matter of fact, Reagan ended the Cold War. Just like liberals said Reagan would take away their Social Security if elected. Just as they said the same thing about Romney. Same shit different era..Liberals never change. lying is a virtue, and the ends justify the means - Saul Alinsky.

So now that you know a bit about Reagan, I'm assuming you would like to expound on the wonderful successes of Obama in the last 4 years and just exactly what Obama's plan is to grow the economy for the next 4 years.

I will understand if you don't respond because the community organizer/class warfare marxist Obama has no plan. Thanks for playing.

Allen Fant
Allen Fant's picture
Offline
Last seen: 38 min 59 sec ago
Joined: Sep 12 2010 - 3:42pm
Right On! Mark.   Obama 's

Right On! Mark.

 

Obama 's only plan, is to stick it to the middle class. This comes directly from the 'Democratic' playbook.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading