MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote:
from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, the debt held by the public will grow.... That's your evidence? A two year old speculation? The whole quote - By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years. Well, did he? Source The Weekly Standard (Hey,,, it's NPR.org When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day). To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush. In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process). How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush. Ok, so he didn't do it in 20 months. You got me. Not more of this obfuscation please. Bush first had to give 80% of some $4.4 trillion in tax cuts to his sponsors, (political investors) going right through projections from the same sources, of some $5.7 trillion in surplus. True accounting requires you add his deficit to the surplus he blew on tax cuts etc. and one comes up with a total of about $9-10 trillion GONE. Plus Obama's first deficit included Bush's TARP and caused the $1.4 trillion deficit 1st year. From 1980 to fiscal 2010, 20 years of those 30, repub borrowing ALL adding to the total debt. Clinton reduced federal debt and federal employment. Obama, handed the worse economy in generations, bailouts everywhere, a loss of 2 million jobs before his first fiscal year is out and oh now...we have a problem. The right, the repubs, the corporatist and the capitalist have absolutely no clothes and have not a single fiscally conservative leg to stand on. Some estimates put it at between $10-12 trillion (tax cuts, 2 wars, drug benefits and in 2006, the largest trans. bill in history with 15,000 earmarks) is what Bush went through also resulting in the worst 2 term job creation in history.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/15/2012 4:56:55 AM >
|