Did Obama Vote for the Debt He "Inherited"

[Yurt]

Unlike the Democrats, the GOP also cuts taxes and revenues which is a major reason why the last three Republican administrations were characterized by record deficits.

Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President. That doesn't excuse Bush though....

Where did you get that from?

now look who's asking for a link....

 

[Iriemon]

Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President. That doesn't excuse Bush though....

Where did you get that from?

now look who's asking for a link....

Sure, I've heard it before. I wasn't really asking for a link, just wondering where he'd gotten that information from.

Maybe JReeves can help us out. He's still on line.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes Obama voted for the 750 BILLION bail out.

 

[WillowTree]

Iriemon:
I if you want to believe that with his one vote Obama means he was able to craft legislation and a budget that reflected his personal preferences and objectives.

But the debt was alread at about $9 trillion before he took office. He didn't vote for that.


Let me see if I can 'splain this to you. IF Obama voted FOR Bush's budget(s), and other appropriations that contributed to that debt [before Obama took office], that would make Obama responsible for the debt that he "inherited" [after Obama took office]. It is Congress that votes on/approves the expenditures, ya know.... Even when they [Congress] vote on/approve more than was requested....

The fallacy is the assumption that a vote for something means that it is what you want. Many people voted for McCain, for example, not because he was their ideal candidate and promised everything they way they wanted, but because it was the best option from their perspective.

Same when a Senator votes for something like a budget. The budget he votes on is a compromise of many parties with an interest, and not least of all the WH because with its veto it can stop the whole budget if it doesn't like it. So any budget Obama voted on necessarily reflected a compromise with other senators, the House, and the WH all of which had influence in what was in the bill.

If every senator voted against a bill because it wasn't what they personally wanted would never get anything passed. And then the govt would shut down, and there would be a real mess.

So to say that because Obama voted for a budget that he is therefor "responsible for it is a misimplication. Obama was only a very small cog in who was "responsible" for the budget.

i can't believe you honestly believe what you just typed....obama is not responsible, though he voted for the budgets, because obama didn't really believe in the expenditures...wtf? it amazes the logical leaps you obama lovers go to in defending him...obama is not even responsible for his own votes....unbelievable

and if obama didn't believe in expenditures, he sure didn't have any problem out spending bush his first budget proposal....

now honey! you know good and well democwats are contortionary genius' donchya?

 

[Iriemon]

The unemployed.

But, who cares about them right? All that matters is our 'overlords' in Washington gets to spend our money in the way they want to.

Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, and if one adminstration caused our weak economy from excess debt stemming from needless wars, the best solution, obviously, is to deleveraged and pay off our debts, and not to pile more on. But rationality is not something found in Washington, apparently.

1) What does the unemployed have to do with a discussion on the debt?

2) Who implied they don't care about the unemployed?

3) What is the basis for the claim that the economic problem stem form excessive government debt?

4) Why would you blame the excessive government debt solely on the needless wars?

1- Everytime government spends money, it sucks money out of the economy. That money employs people, but when it's sucked away and spent by the government, it's usually spent on something that doesn't generate a profit. That, in turn, causes unemployment.

But when the Govt gives money to folks like SS, or buys more tanks, or provides health care, or spends on security, doesn't that money go right back into the economy causing employment?

2- If they did, they wouldn't spend $3T bailing out banks, and instead gave us our tax money back. But, government is much happier allocating money where they see fit rather than where the people see fit.

That presumes that spending this money is causing unemployment, but that is point 1.

3- Empircally- FDR excessive debt = 12 years of depression. LBJ's and Nixon's excessive debt = the 1970s. Bush's excessive debt = current situation. And as described in the response to your first question, it's just the way of economics. If you became unemployed, you wouldn't surely max out your credit cards... but that's what the government is forcing on us.

How do you measure excessive debt?

Why do you say FDR rsponsible for 12 years of depression? The economy grew once he took over. Doesn't that undercut your argument?

Year - % chng real GDP
1933 -1.3%
1934 10.8%
1935 8.9%
1936 13.0%
1937 5.1%
1938 -3.4%
1939 8.1%
1940 8.8%

Debt grew much fast under Reagan that in the 50 years prior. Why didn't that cause a recession? Debt growth slowed down and actually decreased a bit in 2000 under Clinton. Why was there a slowdown in 2001?

I don't disagree that a high level of debt can be harmful. But for years when I argued the debt was harmful, folks would challenge me on it so I'm wondering why your proof is.

4- Most of it went to wars. A good chunk went to fund the increase medicaid, but I probably should've left that part out. Government spending is a complete and utter waste that creates poverty. It's only legitimate functions are the enforcement of basic laws and defender of inalienable rights.

Of the $5 trillion the Govt borrowed since 2001, something less than $1 trillion was used to fight the wars.

The Govt spending has increased over the past 60 years, and poverty has gone down by about half since the "Great Society" programs were implemented.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes Obama voted for the 750 BILLION bail out.

And what percentage of the $10.7 trillion debt Obama inhereted is that?

 

[Meister]

I'm all ears.

Inflation and devaluation of currency as a starter....

How does debt cause inflation?

When we have to borrow dollars from the treasury, that we don't have. The treasury prints new dollars....but nothing to back them except for the dollars already out there. This dilutes the worth of all the dollars. which causes inflation.
Sellers raise the price to recoup the devalued dollar to make the same profit as before.
Employers to some extent raise wages to offset the devalued dollar. But not always

 

[Iriemon]

Inflation and devaluation of currency as a starter....

How does debt cause inflation?

When we have to borrow dollars from the treasury, that we don't have. The treasury prints new dollars....but nothing to back them except for the dollars already out there. This dilutes the worth of all the dollars. which causes inflation.
Sellers raise the price to recoup the devalued dollar to make the same profit as before.
Employers to some extent raise wages to offset the devalued dollar. But not always

We don't borrow from the Treasury. The Treasury borrows money on behalf of the Govt (the Treasury is part of the Govt). The money is borrowed from private investors, businesses, and foreign governments.

New money is created by the Fed, not the Treasury. The Treasury does the actual printing of currency and coin, but ships it to the Fed for distribution into the money supply.

Inflation is only created when the supply of new money exceed population and real GDP growth. That is caused by an increase in the money supply, not Govt debt.

 

[mash107]

How does debt cause inflation?

Monetization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. That clarifies that it is not debt that can create inflation, but by a central bank expanding the money supply, one method of which is to buy govt debt.

If debt didn't cause inflation, why wouldn't government spend $1T a second to ensure we never have to work again? <.<

$1 T wouldn't do it, but basically because the Govt couldn't borrow that much or afford to pay the interest.

It's obviously inflationary, as Bush's years has shown. $5 gas, expensive groceries, etc, until this deflationary correction period hit.

I'm only paying $2 for gas, groceries aren't much more, I pay less for computers, electric stuff, bikes, all kinds of stuff. And this is when the Govt is borrowing like crazy.

Not obvious at all.

That's because the government didn't introduce regulations, nor otherwise inhibited the production of PCs or PC companies from forming. Not to mention, there have been revolutionary increases in productivity of circuits, ICs, PCB manufacturing, etc that has aided in creating PCs cheaply. They dropped in price, despite inflation. They would cost <$50 today if it weren't for inflation.

 

[Iriemon]

Monetization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. That clarifies that it is not debt that can create inflation, but by a central bank expanding the money supply, one method of which is to buy govt debt.



$1 T wouldn't do it, but basically because the Govt couldn't borrow that much or afford to pay the interest.

It's obviously inflationary, as Bush's years has shown. $5 gas, expensive groceries, etc, until this deflationary correction period hit.

I'm only paying $2 for gas, groceries aren't much more, I pay less for computers, electric stuff, bikes, all kinds of stuff. And this is when the Govt is borrowing like crazy.

Not obvious at all.

That's because the government didn't introduce regulations, nor otherwise inhibited the production of PCs or PC companies from forming. Not to mention, there have been revolutionary increases in productivity of circuits, ICs, PCB manufacturing, etc that has aided in creating PCs cheaply. They dropped in price, despite inflation. They would cost <$50 today if it weren't for inflation.

So some products have gone up, some have gone down in price. What do you therefore have to base your assertion that we've had this inflation problem because of the debt.

 

[Yurt]

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By CALVIN WOODWARD

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at Fox Senior...
WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger

 

[Yurt]

Where did you get that from?

now look who's asking for a link....

Sure, I've heard it before. I wasn't really asking for a link, just wondering where he'd gotten that information from.

Maybe JReeves can help us out. He's still on line.

yet i ask you and you say...."why should i"....

 

[jreeves]

Where did you get that from?

now look who's asking for a link....

Sure, I've heard it before. I wasn't really asking for a link, just wondering where he'd gotten that information from.

Maybe JReeves can help us out. He's still on line.

I was on line but not on. I was watching a movie with my wife, sorry. One sec. I will show you....

 

[jreeves]

now look who's asking for a link....

Sure, I've heard it before. I wasn't really asking for a link, just wondering where he'd gotten that information from.

Maybe JReeves can help us out. He's still on line.

I was on line but not on. I was watching a movie with my wife, sorry. One sec. I will show you....

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

“This is big government, man,” McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. “It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison — they’re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.”

The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago — high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders — will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama’s budget.

Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.

 

[Iriemon]

Sure, I've heard it before. I wasn't really asking for a link, just wondering where he'd gotten that information from.

Maybe JReeves can help us out. He's still on line.

I was on line but not on. I was watching a movie with my wife, sorry. One sec. I will show you....

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
You won&#8217;t find too many defenders of George W. Bush&#8217;s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he&#8217;s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama&#8217;s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. &#8220;We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,&#8221; Pelosi said in 2007. &#8220;That&#8217;s fiscal irresponsibility.&#8221;

Now, under Obama, the national debt &#8212; and the interest payments &#8212; will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

&#8220;We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama&#8217;s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. &#8220;But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.&#8221;

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama&#8217;s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress&#8217;s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to &#8220;connect the dots&#8221; &#8212; that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama&#8217;s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that&#8217;s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

&#8220;This is big government, man,&#8221; McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. &#8220;It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison &#8212; they&#8217;re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.&#8221;

The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago &#8212; high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders &#8212; will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama&#8217;s budget.

Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn&#8217;t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they&#8217;re doing the same thing. Only bigger.

Thanks, but from what part of that article did you come away with the conclusion in your statement:

"Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President. That doesn't excuse Bush though.... "

I don't see anything in the article even remotely suggesting that.

 

[Iriemon]

My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By CALVIN WOODWARD

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at Fox Senior...
WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger

OK. Faced with a financial crisis of a type not seen since the great depression, Senator Obama voted for the 2008 stimulus bill along with 74 other Senators, including McCain, and 263 Representatives and one president to pass the stimulus bill to save the nation from another great depression.

How does that Obama any more responsible for the debt than McCain, Bush, or any of the other 74 senators and 263 represenatitives that supported this bill?

And how does that make Obama responsible or having voted for the rought $10 trillion in debt that existsed before that package was voted on?

 

[jreeves]

I was on line but not on. I was watching a movie with my wife, sorry. One sec. I will show you....

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

“This is big government, man,” McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. “It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison — they’re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.”

The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago — high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders — will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama’s budget.

Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.

Thanks, but from what part of that article did you come away with the conclusion in your statement: "Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President. That doesn't excuse Bush though.... "

I don't see anything in the article even remotely suggesting that.

Your welcome....
www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.



Ok so that's
128+
158-
378-
413-
318-
248-
162-
410-
Bush's accumulated debt 2 trillion dollars
Obama sending Congress 'hard choices' budget - White House- msnbc.com
That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

$1.75 trillion won't be the final deficit number either, Obama and others will keep adding new spending to this. The 1.75 trillion is only want is included in the budget for next year.

 

[Iriemon]

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.

And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.

“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”

At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.

The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.

“This is big government, man,” McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. “It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison — they’re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.”

The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago — high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders — will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama’s budget.

Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.

Thanks, but from what part of that article did you come away with the conclusion in your statement: "Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President. That doesn't excuse Bush though.... "

I don't see anything in the article even remotely suggesting that.

Your welcome....
www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.



Ok so that's
128+
158-
378-
413-
318-
248-
162-
410-
Bush's accumulated debt 2 trillion dollars
Obama sending Congress 'hard choices' budget - White House- msnbc.com
That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

$1.75 trillion won't be the final deficit number either, Obama and others will keep adding new spending to this. The 1.75 trillion is only want is included in the budget for next year.

OK, fair enough, that is a bit different than saying "Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President"

The deficit numbers you listed don't actually reflect the accumulated debt, because those deficits figures include extra SS tax receipts (which aren't supposed to be used as general tax revenues) and don't include things like the Iraq war.

To see that actual accumulate debt, we can go to the source that keeps that info: The US Treasury Department.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

If you plug in the numbers from when Bush took office (Jan 20 2001) and left (Jan 20 2009) you get this:

01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
01/21/2005 7,614,468,360,651.30
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

The debt increased $1,886 billion is first term; $3,013 billion his second term, for
an increase of $4,899 billion over the 8 years, or roughly $5 trillion.

Since 1/20/09, when Obama became president, as of 4/28/09, the debt has increased to:

11,194,339,423,305.97

for an increase of about $567 billion.

That is a lot, no doubt, but it is a long way from saying that Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President

 

[jreeves]

Thanks, but from what part of that article did you come away with the conclusion in your statement: "Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President. That doesn't excuse Bush though.... "

I don't see anything in the article even remotely suggesting that.

Your welcome....
www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.



Ok so that's
128+
158-
378-
413-
318-
248-
162-
410-
Bush's accumulated debt 2 trillion dollars
Obama sending Congress 'hard choices' budget - White House- msnbc.com
That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

$1.75 trillion won't be the final deficit number either, Obama and others will keep adding new spending to this. The 1.75 trillion is only want is included in the budget for next year.

OK, fair enough, that is a bit different than saying "Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President"

The deficit numbers you listed don't actually reflect the accumulated debt, because those deficits figures include extra SS tax receipts (which aren't supposed to be used as general tax revenues) and don't include things like the Iraq war.

To see that actual accumulate debt, we can go to the source that keeps that info: The US Treasury Department.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

If you plug in the numbers from when Bush took office (Jan 20 2001) and left (Jan 20 2009) you get this:

01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
01/21/2005 7,614,468,360,651.30
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

The debt increased $1,886 billion is first term; $3,013 billion his second term, for
an increase of $4,899 billion over the 8 years, or roughly $5 trillion.

Since 1/20/09, when Obama became president, as of 4/28/09, the debt has increased to:

11,194,339,423,305.97

for an increase of about $567 billion.

That is a lot, no doubt, but it is a long way from saying that Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President

Fair enough, I was including money Obama has approved for future spending. If we project his spending over 8 years, the grand total is about 10 trillion.

 

[Iriemon]

Your welcome....
www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending
After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.



Ok so that's
128+
158-
378-
413-
318-
248-
162-
410-
Bush's accumulated debt 2 trillion dollars
Obama sending Congress 'hard choices' budget - White House- msnbc.com
That would result in a record deficit Obama projects will hit $1.75 trillion, reflecting the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

$1.75 trillion won't be the final deficit number either, Obama and others will keep adding new spending to this. The 1.75 trillion is only want is included in the budget for next year.

OK, fair enough, that is a bit different than saying "Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President"

The deficit numbers you listed don't actually reflect the accumulated debt, because those deficits figures include extra SS tax receipts (which aren't supposed to be used as general tax revenues) and don't include things like the Iraq war.

To see that actual accumulate debt, we can go to the source that keeps that info: The US Treasury Department.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

If you plug in the numbers from when Bush took office (Jan 20 2001) and left (Jan 20 2009) you get this:

01/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
01/21/2005 7,614,468,360,651.30
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08

The debt increased $1,886 billion is first term; $3,013 billion his second term, for
an increase of $4,899 billion over the 8 years, or roughly $5 trillion.

Since 1/20/09, when Obama became president, as of 4/28/09, the debt has increased to:

11,194,339,423,305.97

for an increase of about $567 billion.

That is a lot, no doubt, but it is a long way from saying that Obama has accumulated more debt in 100 days than Bush did during his whole first term or second term as President

Fair enough, I was including money Obama has approved for future spending. If we project his spending over 8 years, the grand total is about 10 trillion.

Given the economic situation Obama has inhereted, it wouldn't be too surprising that the projected accumulation of debt over Obama's 8 years would be more than Bush's during his whole first term or second term as President. Bush inherited a surplus.

It would be nice if Obama didn't, but I'm not very optimistic.