Quote:(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 latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
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.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

As part of his "Win the Future" program, Mr. Obama called for "taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it."

His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms

Obama was handed a dumpster fire of an economy from Bush that Bush's own advisors were telling him could lead to another Great Depression, and increased the deficit because there was a massive demand shortage in the economy and to fix it required massive increases in government spending. Voila, we have a recovery.

Bush was handed a booming economy and balanced budget from Clinton, and increased the deficit with unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

You can't compare the two because they walked into VERY different situations. If Obama took over a booming economy, he would't have spent so much because it would have been unnecessary. And if Bush took over the country in the shape he left it, God help us all.

(03-30-2012 10:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama was handed a dumpster fire of an economy from Bush that Bush's own advisors were telling him could lead to another Great Depression, and increased the deficit because there was a massive demand shortage in the economy and to fix it required massive increases in government spending. Voila, we have a recovery.

Bush was handed a booming economy and balanced budget from Clinton, and increased the deficit with unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

You can't compare the two because they walked into VERY different situations. If Obama took over a booming economy, he would't have spent so much because it would have been unnecessary.

Here we go again...

For the stimulus to stimulate people have to spend money. Who were the recipients of the stimulus? I didn't get any...did you?

Banks got it...in the hopes that would spur lending...it didn't.

Unions got it...well we all know why.

Some states got it and didn't do much with it...

(03-30-2012 10:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Bush was handed a booming economy and balanced budget from Clinton, and increased the deficit with unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

For the 1000th time, Clinton/Gingrich/Hastert never balanced the budget. They came close, but it was never balanced.

And, we were in an economic decline when Bush took office, and it was exacerbated by 9/11. Indisputable.

Finally, Obama can't even project a balanced budget 10 years out. That tells you something about his beliefs and goals.

(03-30-2012 10:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama was handed a dumpster fire of an economy from Bush that Bush's own advisors were telling him could lead to another Great Depression, and increased the deficit because there was a massive demand shortage in the economy and to fix it required massive increases in government spending. Voila, we have a recovery.

Bush was handed a booming economy and balanced budget from Clinton, and increased the deficit with unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

Bush was handed a recession.

There are two ways of measuring the budget and under one it's balanced and under the other it wasn't. But either way it's a HELL of a lot better of a budget than what was handed Obama.

We weren't in economic decline when Bush took over. The 4Q 2000 = positive 2.4% growth. 4Q 2008 = NEGATIVE 8.9%. That's a whopping 11.3% difference in rate of growth between the two economies. And he was benefitting from bubbles in housing and slashing of interest rates. 9/11 caused a temporary dip from positive 2.7 to negative 1.1, but the following quarter it jumped back up to positive 1.4. 9/11 caused a shock but it's not like the dip was caused by underlying problems that needed fixing like consumer debt, or that there was any real reason for the drop in demand. All Bush had to do was go out and ask people to start shopping again. 9/11 didn't take any money out of their pockets; the 2007-2008 hosing crash and recession did.

Deficits aren't bad so long as it's not significantly outpacing our growth. Now it did especially at the beginning of Obama's term but like I said that was necessary to correct demand.

(03-30-2012 11:00 AM)Max Power Wrote:  There are two ways of measuring the budget and under one it's balanced and under the other it wasn't. But either way it's a HELL of a lot better of a budget than what was handed Obama.

We weren't in economic decline when Bush took over.

At that time it was reported we'd entered a recession.

We also had a GOP congress. The branch that puts together the budget.

Whatever you call what Bush was handed, it was NOTHING like what Obama was handed. When Obama took over the economy was shrinking by negative 9%! When Bush took over it was at positive 2.4%, then dipped barely into the negatives (negative 1.3) but there was never a period with severe negative growth.

Here's one on jobs, as you can see it's not anywhere close to the recession handed Obama--

Oh also, the decline didn't really start for Bush until after he took over (so you could say it's a sort of anti-the "euphoria that we experienced when Obama took over"), meanwhile when Obama took over the recession had been going on for over a year.

(03-30-2012 10:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Obama was handed a dumpster fire of an economy from Bush that Bush's own advisors were telling him could lead to another Great Depression, and increased the deficit because there was a massive demand shortage in the economy and to fix it required massive increases in government spending. Voila, we have a recovery.

Bush was handed a booming economy and balanced budget from Clinton, and increased the deficit with unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

You can't compare the two because they walked into VERY different situations. If Obama took over a booming economy, he would't have spent so much because it would have been unnecessary. And if Bush took over the country in the shape he left it, God help us all.

Really? Can you also tell me the winning numbers for the Mega Millions Jackpot tonight while you are predicting the future?

Disagreeing on events in the past and their consequences today is healthy for the Union, but making definitive statements about hypothetical scenarios is silly.

Of course what I said in the bolded portion is speculation, but because 1. Obama is a Keynesian and 2. Keynesians only think such spending is urgently needed in recessions caused by lack of demand, it's very well grounded speculation on my part.

(03-30-2012 10:15 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Bush was handed a booming economy and balanced budget from Clinton, and increased the deficit with unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

Not exactly.

The economy was pretty flat when Shrub took over, and the downturn came after 9/11. Looking back, the 9/11 downturn was much less severe than what most contemporary observers had forecast.

The budget was nominally balanced, but that was Clinton plus congressional republicans who did that. And it did not remain balanced.

Let's look at to what extent the "unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary wars" caused the subsequent deficit and debt. The wars cost about $100 billion a year, or about $1 trillion over the Shrub presidency. The tax cuts for the "rich" (the only ones that anyone seems to oppose) cost about $70 billion a year, or about $600 billion in round numbers during the Shrub presidency (of course, this ignores the impact on tax revenues of any positive effects on the economy, which Shrub supporters argue were significant and detractors argue were not). So, without getting into the specifics of whether the adjectives you used are justified, and focusing on the nouns, we have $1.6 trillion of debt added by the tax cuts and the wars.

But the debt increased roughly $5 trillion under Shrub. So the debt and wars amount to roughly 1/3 of the total increase. If you're going to use the wording "increased the deficit with" in conjuction with something, wouldn't it be twice as appropriate to use it in conjunction with what cased the other 2/3 rather than what caused the 1/3?

"Bush inherited a booming economy and a budget surplus, and turned it all around for the worse with tax cuts and wars," makes a great sound byte. As I have said before, I would not have done the "Bush tax cuts" because 1) they were not paid for, and 2) they were not targeted on things that would spur growth. And I would never have gone to Iraq before business was concluded in Afghanistan. So I'm not defending either one, but blaming the deficits and debt on them, without acknowledging the other causes, is dishonest and disingenuous.

What is silly is to take this numbers without understanding the context of why our presidents did what they did. Bush and Obama had to spend money to keep us out of a depression.

While it is unsavory, it was necessary.

Here's a pretty good summary:



As you can see, the wars (and to be fair it's counting other increased defense spending which are probably at least somewhat related to the wars) were $1.5T and Bush tax cuts were $1.8T, which did indeed account for most of the deficit increase, so no I'm not being dishonest and disingenuous thank you very much. I didn't say anything about just singling out the rich tax cuts, you put those words in my mouth.

Also, as the graphic makes plainly clear the deficit increase caused by ALL Obama's new policies combined is less than the Bush tax cuts and Defense spending increase (NOT combined; either).

Really, the people (who probably supported Bush) who are complaining about Obama ballooning the deficit don't seem to realize that most of the deficit growth is being caused by Bush's old policies.

(03-30-2012 11:44 AM)Fitbuddy Wrote:  What is silly is to take this numbers without understanding the context of why our presidents did what they did. Bush and Obama had to spend money to keep us out of a depression.

While it is unsavory, it was necessary.

Bush did not have to spend money to keep us out of a depression. Unless you're talking about near the end of his term. He did start spending then but not enough.

I am talking about the end of Bush's term. I was against the bail outs but I saw no alternative offered. In the end, it was the right thing to do.

Agreed. Here is the problem with all of this "lol Obama is increasing the deficit more than Bush" nonsense: not every situation is the same and presidents spend when they believe they have to. Bush didn't pass any stimulus or bail anybody out in his first 7 years because he didn't have to. When sh!t went to hell in a handbasket he had a (small) stimulus of his own and bailout of his own. If he was handed a dumpster fire you can bet he would have spent more, possibly in addition to the spending he DID do which wasn't really designed for economic growth, so like I said God help us all.

(03-30-2012 11:51 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Here's a pretty good summary:

There are many different ways to spin numbers. This is one of the more extreme partisan spins. Not the most, I have seen worse. But not objective either.

What is to be gained by debating whether one schmuck was more of a schmuck than the other schmuck?