In 2008 Obama complained about Bush increasing the debt by $3 trillion, and promised to restore fiscal discipline.
http://moveleft.org/obamas_promises/www-barackobama-com_issues_fiscal.pdf
Instead, he tripled the deficit and has accumulated three times as much debt in six years as Bush did in eight. Obama’s smallest deficit is larger than Bush’ largest.
But it is worse than it seems. Obama’s original claim was also a lie – according to the White House Budget Office, Bush increased the debt by $2 trillion, not $3 trillion. Obama has increased it by $6 trillion so far.
Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2020
Obama towers over Bush. (I may be misreading the graphs.)
Actually. that is the spill pile from the holes they dug.
Those lavish vacations, golf outings, and bankrupt green companies won’t just pay for themselves.
Same strategy FDR used to get elected with similar results.
I might be wrong about the correlation between the accumulated debt graph and rise in temperature globally.
Surely paying off the debt is going to bring the earths temperature back to something resembling normal
You all have it wrong, all that debt is Bush fault don’t you know that! /sarc off
Obama is claiming that he merely paid all of that to get us out of the “Great Recession”, which resulted from the excesses of unregulated, preditory capitalism under evil President Bush. The only problem with that way of thinking is that we never did recover from the Great Recession under Obama’s watch.
The biggest problem is how that was done. By increasing spending and increasing power for the government. For the same “cost” to the government, they could have cut all income tax rates by between 1/4 to 1/3. Which would have actually be stimulating to the economy.
While tax cuts are always eventually taken away, spending never goes away. Spending popped in 2009, and has stayed about the same since, but there is constant screeching by Democrats that things have been “cut”. There have been actual cuts of course for some departments, but not in the total. It has just been shifted to different areas of government spending.
Obama responsible for cuts?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ISIS-beheadings.jpg
Yeah, I guess so.
Hilary’s magic reset button certainly did its job. Foreign policy back to the cold war and Middle East back to the dark ages.
The biggest problem is how that was done.
Would that include Reid & Polosi not passing a budget and using the ‘Budget Reconciliation’ method? Like spending the One-Time-Only “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) ” of $831 billion three more times.
What does it mean that there is negative accumulated debt for 2001?
That there was a surplus? Thanks to Newt.
That explanation stands for the negative budget surplus, but it doesn’t explain the negative accumulated debt.
It only compares the two presidencies. It doesn’t include the accumulated debt prior to 2001.
If you would check with the Daily Treasury Statements at the US Treasury Bureau of the Fiscal Service, you would see in dollars and cents that the automatic stabilizers kicked in the fourth quarter of 2008, and continued for three to four years. This was the increase in the private sector.
This was NOT Obama fixing the economy with spending for jobs. These were unemployment payments, disability payments, social security and other insurance programs that kicked in when the economy lost 8 million jobs between Sept 2008 and December 2008.
The automatic stabilizers are mandated by law.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
This travesty will not change until the American people realize they are flat brook (they have sold their soul to the Devil for a few dollars a good joint and birth control) and then it will be way to late.
How soon they forget the cost of bailing out the Bush Recession. We’re on track to balance the budget by the end of this term. Suck it!