PDA

View Full Version : Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents...



djones520
09-09-2010, 07:11 AM
Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data


In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

I do believe that was the same siren call that I've seen people like Satanicus using for Bush's entire 8 years in office. Obama managed to do it in 19 months.

Gingersnap
09-09-2010, 09:36 AM
That's damning. :(

PoliCon
09-09-2010, 12:03 PM
CUE wee wee or Hazlnutjob to deny this based on Soros provided talking points in 3 . . . .2 . . . .

FlaGator
09-09-2010, 01:42 PM
Just when you think the stats can't be more interesting...


CNSNews.com) - In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner). One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf). That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf). At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

Whole story here (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404)

PoliCon
09-09-2010, 02:45 PM
I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED I tell you. SHOCKED!! [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

hazlnut
09-09-2010, 04:37 PM
CUE wee wee or Hazlnutjob to deny this based on Soros provided talking points in 3 . . . .2 . . . .

How about this -- Although the CNS news article incorrectly attributes the entire amount to Obama, the number is still a very troubling. We should all be concerned about it, and, instead of trying to attach blame, lets find solutions.

Also, in fairness to Obama, debt will always increase during a bad economy as tax revenues decrease and expenses increase. Let me ask this hypothetical -- had John McCain won the 2008 election, and the make-up of congress somehow swung right, how would the GOP Leg/Pres handled things differently?

I'm assuming no stimulus, no health care. But what ground-breaking supply side solutions would they have purposed?

Question 2: What cost us more, Obama's Health Care or Bush's Tax cuts?

Jfor
09-09-2010, 04:40 PM
How about this -- Although the CNS news article incorrectly attributes the entire amount to Obama, the number is still a very troubling. We should all be concerned about it, and, instead of trying to attach blame, lets find solutions.

Also, in fairness to Obama, debt will always increase during a bad economy as tax revenues decrease and expenses increase. Let me ask this hypothetical -- had John McCain won the 2008 election, and the make-up of congress somehow swung right, how would the GOP Leg/Pres handled things differently?

I'm assuming no stimulus, no health care. But what ground-breaking supply side solutions would they have purposed?

Question 2: What cost us more, Obama's Health Care or Bush's Tax cuts?

Tax cuts don't cost anything dipshit.

hazlnut
09-09-2010, 04:50 PM
Tax cuts don't cost anything dipshit.

Sure they don't, dear...:rolleyes:

And extending them, that's free too, right chuckles?:p

Molon Labe
09-09-2010, 04:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miIBp7ufxjk

Jfor
09-09-2010, 05:05 PM
Sure they don't, dear...:rolleyes:

And extending them, that's free too, right chuckles?:p

How can it cost anything when they don't spend it? Malloc has already posted several times how the government increased the amount of money they take in by cutting taxes. You are just to ignorant to see it. You can tax people all you want but if they are not working then you ain't getting anything.

hazlnut
09-09-2010, 05:49 PM
How can it cost anything when they don't spend it? Malloc has already posted several times how the government increased the amount of money they take in by cutting taxes. You are just to ignorant to see it. You can tax people all you want but if they are not working then you ain't getting anything.

I understand how it may sound on the surface -- we never had it, how do we lose it?

But this fact-check article with comments from both a left-leaning group and the Heritage Foundation does a good job of explaining Tax Cuts as lost or 'uncollected revenues'.

Bush tax cuts greater than health care? Probably. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/)


The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities agrees with Krugman. The center's 2009 report on the Bush tax cuts states:

"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts added about $1.7 trillion to deficits between 2001 and 2008. Because they (were) financed by borrowing — which increases the national debt — this figure includes the extra interest costs resulting from that additional debt. This figure also includes the cost of 'patching' the Alternative Minimum Tax to keep the tax from hitting millions of upper-middle-class households, a problem the tax cuts helped cause. Over the next decade (2009-2018), making the tax cuts permanent would cost $4.4 trillion, assuming that the tax cuts remain deficit-financed."

We then asked the conservative Heritage Institute about the Bush tax cuts. Brian Riedl analyzes the federal budget for the group.

He said Krugman's $1.8 trillion number only considers the government's lost revenue, and doesn't account for the economic activity that lower taxes generate. He said the number was "defensible, but an overstatement." He estimates there would be a stimulative effect from tax cuts that could shave about 25 percent off that tally. Still, he said, Krugman is in the right ballpark for a static score of uncollected revenues.

"I can't believe I'm actually saying one of Krugman's numbers is defensible," he added.

This is pretty important stuff as it will come up a lot in the discussions about next year's tax code and what to do about the Bush Tax Cuts. I've heard a couple people on the right try to spin it as you did, but most have been honest in acknowledging them as lost revenue while focusing on the economic activity the lower taxes can generate.

Tax cuts = more money into the economy but less money to pay down the dept. It's a trade off. Orszag said we should keep them for two more years, then end them altogether.

Jfor
09-09-2010, 08:20 PM
I understand how it may sound on the surface -- we never had it, how do we lose it?

But this fact-check article with comments from both a left-leaning group and the Heritage Foundation does a good job of explaining Tax Cuts as lost or 'uncollected revenues'.

Bush tax cuts greater than health care? Probably. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/)



This is pretty important stuff as it will come up a lot in the discussions about next year's tax code and what to do about the Bush Tax Cuts. I've heard a couple people on the right try to spin it as you did, but most have been honest in acknowledging them as lost revenue while focusing on the economic activity the lower taxes can generate.

Tax cuts = more money into the economy but less money to pay down the dept. It's a trade off. Orszag said we should keep them for two more years, then end them altogether.

It is not lost revenue. You dems considering cutting by spending by increasing money, just not as much as you would like.

hazlnut
09-09-2010, 09:15 PM
It is not lost revenue. You dems considering cutting by spending by increasing money, just not as much as you would like.

Well, the economist from the Heritage Foundation called it 'uncollected revenue.' Close enough.

Jfor
09-09-2010, 09:22 PM
Well, the economist from the Heritage Foundation called it 'uncollected revenue.' Close enough.

Can't be revenue. Try again fool.

hazlnut
09-10-2010, 12:19 AM
Can't be revenue. Try again fool.

Take it up with the economists -- their terminology, not mine.

If you continue to struggle with the concept, I suggest your just refer to them as SIDU. (shit I don't understand)

KhrushchevsShoe
09-10-2010, 02:15 AM
I'm just going to stop working completely. When the checks stop coming it wont be like I lost any money, its just money I never made!

Sonnabend
09-10-2010, 03:42 AM
You cannot borrow yourself out of poverty, and you cannot spend your way out of debt.

Jfor
09-10-2010, 08:53 AM
Take it up with the economists -- their terminology, not mine.

If you continue to struggle with the concept, I suggest your just refer to them as SIDU. (shit I don't understand)

You are the one who does not understand that if you never got the money in the first place, how is it lost?

Jfor
09-10-2010, 08:54 AM
I'm just going to stop working completely. When the checks stop coming it wont be like I lost any money, its just money I never made!

Don't worry, the .gov will take care of your sorry ass.

Zathras
09-10-2010, 09:20 AM
I'm just going to stop working completely. When the checks stop coming it wont be like I lost any money, its just money I never made!

How can you stop doing something you've never done in the first place?

djones520
09-10-2010, 11:15 AM
I'm just going to stop working completely. When the checks stop coming it wont be like I lost any money, its just money I never made!

So buy your line of thinking, when that paycheck stopped coming, you increase your spending by a factor of 4, and claim that will get you out of debt. Gotcha.

Zafod
09-10-2010, 12:36 PM
good grief. Nutball and that shoetard are making this thread really lame....

marinejcksn
09-10-2010, 01:37 PM
And extending them, that's free too, right chuckles?:p

Actually....yes. Provided you cut spending in an equal amount, the cost us nothing. 0 + 0 does not equal 1. Try again.

marinejcksn
09-10-2010, 01:43 PM
You cannot borrow yourself out of poverty, and you cannot spend your way out of debt.

2010 WINNER OF THE SMARTEST STATEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD. :cool:

I'm in debt to the tune of 5,000 clams (stupid ex wife's car :mad:). I go to a bank with a plan to get myself out of debt, by asking for a loan of 10,000 cannolis. I then spend all the dough on alcohol and strippers, miss the car payment and ask for another loan. I tell the bank "I've got to spend in order to get myself out of debt!" They'd look at me like I had a dick growing out of my forehead.

Unless I was the Vice President. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiYeJ__9BOs

Molon Labe
09-10-2010, 02:38 PM
2010 WINNER OF THE SMARTEST STATEMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD. :cool:

I'm in debt to the tune of 5,000 clams (stupid ex wife's car :mad:). I go to a bank with a plan to get myself out of debt, by asking for a loan of 10,000 cannolis. I then spend all the dough on alcohol and strippers, miss the car payment and ask for another loan. I tell the bank "I've got to spend in order to get myself out of debt!" They'd look at me like I had a dick growing out of my forehead.

Unless I was the Vice President. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiYeJ__9BOs

That's a great video. There's also one where he suggest's in order get us out of debt we have to do our patriotic duty and pay more taxes.

Yes, he actually believes by paying taxes you are a Patriot. :rolleyes:

marinejcksn
09-10-2010, 03:08 PM
I feel Patriotic when paying my taxes....when the money isn't spent on bullshit. Which isn't often.