Facts and Real Numbers About The Debt
By Fatcat44
@Fatcat44 (1141)
United States
January 3, 2013 10:31am CST
I have had a few left wingers comment that my facts are wrong and Obama is not hurting our country. They say Bush did all of the debt and Obama has a very little debt. So here is the debt by year. This is not a tea party statement, but my own observation and running the numbers.
2001 - +128.2 B
2002 - -157.8 B
2003 - -377.6 B
2004 - -412.7 B
2005 - -318.3 B
2006 - -248.2 B
2007 - -160.7 B
2008 - -458.6 B
Total Bush -2,005.7 B
2009 - -1,412.7 B
2010 - -1,293.5 B
2011 - -1,299.6 B
2012 Est - -1,326.9 B
Total Obama -5,332.7 B
In four years, Obama has put us 2.66 times more in debt than Bush did eight. Even if you say 2009 debt belongs to Bush, Bush's total for 9 years is 3.418 Trillion, while Obama's debt is still larger at 3.92 trillion, which is only 3 years. At the same rate in at nine year his still rate will be 11.76 trillion. And on top of that, much of the debt in 2009 was bail-out loans which were mostly paid back, and does not even show up on Obama's debt, so I claim 2009 belongs to Obama, because he spent it later.
The source, since I cannot paste yet, is from the the government site www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical.
So when I say Obama is spending into debt and is totally bad for our country, here is my facts. Where are the lefts facts on this?
And all of this at the time when the tax revenues in 2012 were at a high within 100 billion of the all time high. Obamas tax revenues averaged higher than Bushes tax revenues. So it is not a revenue problem. There revenue is there. The problem is spending. We are spending more than we are taking in. This is the problem with Obama, he wants to spend, spend and spend. He has not had a budget passed since he has been elected, nor does it appear he ever will.
We cannot continue on the road that we are on. If you do not have a problem with what Obama is doing, then something is wrong.
If you guys do not like Bush, then you should dislike Obama five times worse, because Obama's debt rate is five times higher than Bush's.
1 person likes this
8 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
4 Jan 13
The thing you overlooked is that each president leaves a lasting legacy for future presidents. President Roosevelt (FDR) left us with welfare and Social Security which we have to take care of the increasing cost and decrease revenue. President Truman and Eisenhower left the cost of the Korean War and the start of the cold war costs. President Kennedy left us the involvement in Vite Nam. President Johnson gave us the Great Society and the War on Poverty Programs and their costs. And on it goes new presidents and new programs with new recurring costs. Each President has all of these programs to contend with and fund. This is now our problem because every president can only think of one thing and that is to create something to be remember by. You add the new program and the old programs and you have out of control government spending. There is never a real attempt to eliminate outdated government programs. You also get different agencies duplicating services and people double dipping which leads to abuse and fraud. A good example is the Food Stamp Program. Money is given to people who help buying food. You have the School Lunch Program to provide meals to children in school. The cost of food goes up so does the cost of food stamps and the Hot Lunch program now feed children breakfast, lunch and dinner in some communities year round. A family (mother and 3 children) of four gets $600 a month in food stamps. The children get their meals during the week so in a typical month the mother has to provide 162 meals out of 360 meals a month. The programs are a duplication. The Milk Marking System set up in the 1930 was designed to provide fresh milk to all areas of the country. The price was established based upon the distance from Eau Claire Wisconsin, the further from there the more the government subsidized the production costs. That was fine in the 1930 when raw milk could be hauled a few miles to the Dairy before it started to spoil. Now farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota can produce milk cheaper and ship it to California than it can be produced in California but the law will not allow it and the government is paying farmers to produce milk so that it can be sold to the consumer at a higher cost. We have many programs that are supposed to help the public that cost the public more and their main purpose now is to keep the government jobs and the bureaucracy alive and controlling the lives of people.
What we need is a top to bottom review of all government programs and to change or eliminate those that are not doing what they were intended to do. We need to eliminate duplication of programs so that a person goes one place to get information on purchasing a house rather than 25 or 30 different departments. We also have to educate the public that anytime the Government is paying for something that money is coming out of their pocket and about 1/2 of the money goes to pay the workers and feed the every growing bureaucracy.
2 people like this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
4 Jan 13
Mothers do not have to provide weekend food anymore...Many states have a program where on friday, if you get free meals at school, you can take home prepared meals for the weekend...Most of the food served free is not consumed by the kids...They do not like it so they do not eat it. Instead, they eat the junk food that mother buys with her food stamps.
You also have to take into account the Millions of tons of food given out monthly by food banks. I volunteer at one 2 times a month. I have gotten to know many of the folks who come to this one over the years. I know where they live and how much they make. The neighbor behind me, makes over $3,000 a month, yet he gets "His" free food every week. He also got a bike from their "give a bike to the homeless" program. He is not homeless and he is not poor. This is not an uncommon story in food bank lines...
1 person likes this
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
3 Jan 13
Part of the problem is paying for Bush's two wars, one of which was not needed and paying for the interest on all the debt that Bush ran up. You can't just borrow money and not pay interest on it.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
3 Jan 13
So then you are JUST AS UPSET about Libya and the cost of THAT? The cost of drone attacks? How about the foreign aid to Muslim countries that harbor al qaeda; like Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Turkey?
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
3 Jan 13
I don't understand conservatives. The damn Obama for helping to overthrow Khaddafi in Libya and them damn him for not doing much to overthrow Syria. Then you complain about counties you say support Al-Qaeda yet you don't like the coat of drone attacks on Al-Qaeda. Gee, I guess you couldn't justify the cost of going into Pakistan to take out bin Laden.
1 person likes this
@Lakota12 (42600)
• United States
4 Jan 13
What I Would like to see that Obama stops blaming Bush for every thing also would like to see that obama gives credit to bush for things he did instead of obama takign credit for these things even tho Bush started them Obama should get the credit for them going thro . WHat do you think?
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
4 Jan 13
Hard to argue against the numbers considering they are right there in front of people and the left still continues to disagree.
President Obama has spent quite a lot more than what Bush spent on two wars. Let's forget a couple of things. 1) There has been a dramatic draw down in the number of forces overseas. 2) President Obama has moved to a less hands on approach to the Wars. 3) The number of people on food stamps increased dramatically. 4) The number of people on unemployment is still unacceptably high. 4) That the amount of people on SS, Medicare, etc. has dramatically increased due to the Baby Boomer generation. (Remember, the first of that generation retired at the end of the Bush administration.) 5) That it was President Obama who signed the Stimulus package into law. 6) Obamacare
I guess if you ignore those spending items, then he must be spending all of that money on trips to Hawaii, California and whatever European country is cool at the moment.
Sorry, but all the spending in all the bills that bare President Obama's signature is his spending. He signed it. It is his spending regardless of who, what, when, where or why.
A credit card company doesn't accept excuses on what you spent your money. They only expect you to pay back the money that you have signed. You signed it. It is your responsibility to pay the debt. It doesn't matter that you bought that furniture for your girlfriend and then broke up with her three months later. The money is still due. President Obama is still RESPONSIBLE for the stuff that he signed. No, ifs ands or buts. You can't excuse it away saying well it was the past President's fault. Well guess what? There are wars throughout American History that Presidents weren't responsible for but they still shouldered the responsibility of what the past President's have done. STOP THE EXCUSES. President Obama has been President for FOUR years. Guess what? HE SPENT LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY. He is RESPONSIBLE for his recklessness regarding the debt and his lack of addressing it. No more excuses. No more free passes. He gets well deserved criticism on his continuing lack of spending control by himself and Congess. Yes, it is his fault.
1 person likes this
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
4 Jan 13
The obamderthal had a choice...clean up the mess the government was in or let the mess go viral...He chose viral. He could have pulled out of the mideast, he could have close cuba, he could have reduced entitlement, he could have sent advisers into the businesses and banks that were in trouble instead of throwing tax dollars at the problem and compounding it....Banks are still folding and the businesses mostly moved offshore or want more bailout money.
No one needed the bailouts if they truly wanted to succeed. Look at Ford...they were in trouble too, but they got themselves out of trouble even though the economy sucks... We are to the point that we owe more than the country is worth. In 2012, the government borrowed money to pay part of the interest owed...NONE of the principle has been paid off. NO ONE is going to lend us money for our entitlement programs this year much less money to pay the interest again this year...
I did not vote for Bush, and I did not vote for the obamderthal the first time or the second time...I am disgusted with what he is doing to MY country!
1 person likes this
@crossbones27 (49436)
• Mojave, California
3 Jan 13
You do realize that Bush policies leave Obama over one trillion dollars in debt each year before he even decides to do anything. I have made this point before and that is if you want to criticize him do it because Obama he never stopped those Bush policies. He finally ended the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I know Obama has done some things to cut that down like ending the Iraq war but now it is kind of hard for him because what he wants to cut what the right wing hates like cutting defense. As I have said before many on the right is not worried about spending as long as they are spending it on things the right likes. That is why you never heard any complaints during the Bush administration while they were racking up the debt because they were spending it on things the right wing likes for the most part.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
3 Jan 13
When you continue to blame Bush you are really only helping make Obama look more and more like the inept puppet he is. Do you realize that? HE SAID he knew how to fix things, was he lying or merely bragging without any thing to back him up? He SAID that Bush's spending (raising the debt limit to cover it) was upatriotic, irresponsible, yet he continues to spend just as much OR more than Bush did. How about the billions he sends to countries that continue to harbor al Qaeda? Who's leadership promises to destroy the west as in Egypt and Pakistan? How about the cost of the 'war' in Libya where he promised American arms would not get into the hands of al Qaeda yet we saw our Ambassador and three others killed there with American weapons? How about the cost of Syria aid?
@crossbones27 (49436)
• Mojave, California
3 Jan 13
Sorry Deb facts are a stubborn thing and they do not lie. Its like trying to fight physics. Its like trying to prove to someone that you are so incredible that you can run through a solid brick wall. When we all know that that brick wall is going to knock you out at the very least. Its not blaming the Bush administration just pointing out the facts.
Aida I understand your logic but sometimes things aren't that simple because I think many families just could not afford to to be taxed anymore. The thing that we will probably have problem in the future is that those tax policies were made permanent. I kind of have no problem with that but that will be until we hit another green pasture where everyone is doing well and congress gets drunk on spending. That is kind of what I think happened because the Clinton administration did so well. People just took things for granted.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
3 Jan 13
@crossbones: People rarely and I mean rarely think of the fact that when we vote in a president or a new president every four years, any policies and the like in effect and set to expire within the new president's term will in fact add to the debt. In order to calculate the amount any president truly has racked up in debt, you need to literally subtract all the numbers for policies that expire into the next president's presidency and let's not forget any war times. That would take people too much time to go back through history, read every bill and law, and then appropriate it to the correct president.
Then they need to calculate the amount of interest that is needed to pay off any debts. If you can't fully pay off the interest for a year on something for example, then the next year you have interest on top of interest. So interest should be added to the appropriate president's bill. The vast majority of a war's interest is appropriated to the president who for all intents and purposes started the war. Inflation also needs to be factored in. Was the dollar worth the same amount in 2000 as it is today? I already know the government sites don't fully update the information and have in fact wrote a letter about giving the American people ACTUAL numbers with the correct appropriations and past numbers (before the inflation) so they could do their own analysis or comparisons.
That is the reason I won't answer directly to such an incomplete posts on the debt made by either party. It isn't full facts unless it includes the amount of money used until the previous president's policies expire. If they are extended by the new president then you count it from the time of the extension onward as theirs until another president extends it.
Why that concept of fully doing all the back math is so hard for people I don't understand?
On the other hand, I am disappointed in Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts period. Those tax cuts, until we are completely out of Iraq, are terrible on the country's finances. I think he should have ended the tax cuts for everyone not just the rich.
@gitfiddleplayer (10362)
• United States
3 Jan 13
It doesn't matter what stats you post, the stupid libs have been trained to blame Bush. They will never take responsibility for anything and that makes them sub human in my book. I do not care what they say, its all lies, I do not care what they try to do, its only for themselves. They will never own up to anything and will continually blame everyone. Don't waste your time Fatcatt44, focus on yourself and how to make your family strong.
@Fatcat44 (1141)
• United States
3 Jan 13
I know, they will still blame Bush after Obama 2nd term is done. That is all they have.
It is pretty sad when Obama goes down in history for the famous words "It was Bush's Fault."
When I got the number for the debt, it also shows the revenue from taxes. When Bush lowered the tax rate, the revenue increase by 40%. How? This is a point the left cannot understand. Lower taxes and revenue will go up.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
3 Jan 13
Obama claims to be bipartisan and working for the good of the country. IF that were so, he'd not be blaming the previous administration, nor would the responders here on this discussion. By parroting the narrative Obama spews, they are helping divide the country and adding to the crisis we are in right now because they support and vote for this administration. IF all of them truly cared about the situation we are in, they'd hold the man who TOLD US HE COULD FIX IT, to account. The fact that they won't, and that Obama doesn't tells us that it is PARTY they support, not America.