National Debt Explodes $6 Trillion Under Obama

[Black_Label]

Not true. Obama has spent less, and expanded the debt less than any other president since Ike.

Unlike the "spend us into oblivion" right wingers like Reagan and W,..

By the true numbers, you are dead wrong

You sir, are an idiot and fall for the typical propaganda... because you want it to be true

I love the way the liberals, when faced with the truth, bring out their little charts and graphs (no doubt from some propaganda site) to bolster the defense of their boy.

This site in particular, is the worst I have seen so far. "But LOOK!!! I have a chart!!! it MUST be true!!"


The next thing we will hear from these Kool aid drinkers is that the United States is in the best shape that it has EVER been in.......

It's from forbes and 100% factual.

Though whenever the right wingers are presented with the truth, they just start trolling and crying conspiracy because they can't handle it.

 

[Faun]

Where does the "disaster that was Bush", which btw took us through seven years of unparalleled prosperity...

by what metric?

United States - GDP - real growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

You have a very bizarre definition for "unparalleled prospertity" given those 7 years were the worst over any 7 year period before then going all the way to 1952.

7 year periods of real GDP (1951-2007)

 

[Erand7899]

An OPINION piece... look at the fucking numbers, you fucking hyper-partisan idiot parrot

No, it's not. It's 100% facts.

Though to ultra right wing hack like you, "facts" are a thing you don't care about, only fabricated lies from the propaganda outlets that give your lil' 2"er a chubbie.

The article was penned by a left winger, and is not fact. It starts with claiming that Obama is not responsible for the 2009 budget by ignoring the fact that Obama signed most of the spending bills in that budget, and that Bush had threatened to veto those bills.

Consequently, if one can get by with ignoring the huge jump in spending in the 2009 budget, one can falsely show a much lower spending increase.

A large number of the figures put out by this administration, and/or its apologists try to pretend that 2009 never existed. Hell, if we ignore the job losses in 2009, we can pretend that Obama actually created jobs, so lets start counting from 2010.

 

[Faun]

An OPINION piece... look at the fucking numbers, you fucking hyper-partisan idiot parrot

No, it's not. It's 100% facts.

Though to ultra right wing hack like you, "facts" are a thing you don't care about, only fabricated lies from the propaganda outlets that give your lil' 2"er a chubbie.

The article was penned by a left winger, and is not fact. It starts with claiming that Obama is not responsible for the 2009 budget by ignoring the fact that Obama signed most of the spending bills in that budget, and that Bush had threatened to veto those bills.

Consequently, if one can get by with ignoring the huge jump in spending in the 2009 budget, one can falsely show a much lower spending increase.

A large number of the figures put out by this administration, and/or its apologists try to pretend that 2009 never existed. Hell, if we ignore the job losses in 2009, we can pretend that Obama actually created jobs, so lets start counting from 2010.

Which bill(s) did Obama sign in 2009 that caused those massive job losses?

 

[RandallFlagg]

By the true numbers, you are dead wrong

You sir, are an idiot and fall for the typical propaganda... because you want it to be true

I love the way the liberals, when faced with the truth, bring out their little charts and graphs (no doubt from some propaganda site) to bolster the defense of their boy.

This site in particular, is the worst I have seen so far. "But LOOK!!! I have a chart!!! it MUST be true!!"


The next thing we will hear from these Kool aid drinkers is that the United States is in the best shape that it has EVER been in.......

Oh please. Give me a break. Republicans think Iraq was a "success" and still insist they had WMD's. Give it up.

OK then - how many times have folks, like yourself, watched THIS video and claimed that it was all "lies"???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4puS-yjwsiE]"Words Matter" Obama Lies Documented (in his own words) - YouTube[/ame]


You present charts - I present that boy, himself, in his own words, lying his butt off and still you liberals will NOT acknowledge that he is a liar.

 

[Nova78]

Not true. Obama has spent less, and expanded the debt less than any other president since Ike.

Unlike the "spend us into oblivion" right wingers like Reagan and W,..

Thats why we overspend 4 billion a day to keep the lights on ,Obama is a financial genius, glad you straighten it all out .....
View attachment 24724

Where you screaming impeach W when he was spending us into oblivion?

Of course not, you were sucking his ass because you don't give a shit what the (R)'s do

Get fucked you ignorant hack.

Yea, them dems are all great at the shell game, now there scrambling like rats trying to figure new ways to feed the government monster.

 

[Erand7899]

by what metric?

United States - GDP - real growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

You have a very bizarre definition for "unparalleled prospertity" given those 7 years were the worst over any 7 year period before then going all the way to 1952.

7 year periods of real GDP (1951-2007)

View attachment 24725

Worst, compared to what? During George Bush's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $10,129,800,000,000 to $14,081,700,000,000. That is a 35.45% increase over those 8 years. During Bill Clinton's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $6,092,500,000,000 to $10,129,800,000,000. That was a 66.26% increase over those eight years, but it was fueled by both the dot.com boom and the housing boom. Both bubbles. The dot.com boom burst in the last year of Clinton's term, causing the economy to flatten out, and the housing boom began to sputter as Bush took office.

Since Bush left office, the economy has grown from $14,081,700,000,000 to $15,851,200,000,000. That is a 12.56% increase over Obama's 4 years. Evem more dismal if you look at it in constant 2005 dollars.

 

[Erand7899]

No, it's not. It's 100% facts.

Though to ultra right wing hack like you, "facts" are a thing you don't care about, only fabricated lies from the propaganda outlets that give your lil' 2"er a chubbie.

The article was penned by a left winger, and is not fact. It starts with claiming that Obama is not responsible for the 2009 budget by ignoring the fact that Obama signed most of the spending bills in that budget, and that Bush had threatened to veto those bills.

Consequently, if one can get by with ignoring the huge jump in spending in the 2009 budget, one can falsely show a much lower spending increase.

A large number of the figures put out by this administration, and/or its apologists try to pretend that 2009 never existed. Hell, if we ignore the job losses in 2009, we can pretend that Obama actually created jobs, so lets start counting from 2010.

Which bill(s) did Obama sign in 2009 that caused those massive job losses?

And excellent example of "quick, change the subject".

 

[Erand7899]

Wrong again. W expanded the debt more than any other president in the nation by a longshot.

Hell W took the biggest surplus in US history, and turned it into the biggest deficit.

It take a real idiot to pull that one off, and those idiots are W and the GOP.

There was no surplus you dumb fuck, Clinton raided SS and left Bush with a recession. I'm not here to defend Bush, he was a horrid President, he was by definition a progressive.

Then again, Obama spending more on military is ok with you because Obama a Democrat.

Obama can expand Homeland security and that's ok because once again, Obama is a Democrat

Obama gave us the NDAA, tax credits, failed stimulus, dumps billions on the rich, more wars and not a single repeal of the evil vile costly Bush era and yet you support it all because Obama is a Democrat.

Just stop talking, lol.

Yes, there was a surplus

Clinton gave us a booming economy from simple democratic fiscal plans. Fair tax rates, and controlled spending.

W threw this in the trash and went straight back to epically failed, give everything to the rich "trickle down" plans on steroids that completely destroyed the economy.

Thank god the democrats whooped the GOP's asses in 06' taking back both houses and the presidency in 08', otherwise the nation would likely cease to exist.

No, there was no surplus. However, to know that you would have to know the difference between a budget (a planning document) and actual spending. If we had had a real surplus, the national debt would have declined by that amount. It never declined.

Nor, did we have a projected surplus of any kind. The economic factors that could have brought us a projected surplus had already disappeared when the Clintonistias came out with the glorious news. Just more smoke and mirrors from Democrat politicians.

BTW. Clinton gave us nothing except a massive tax increase and welfare reform. That grand economy that you loons are so proud of was created by two bubbles. The dot.com boom, and the housing boom. Clinton got the glory for the party, and Bush got the hangover when the party was over.

 

[Erand7899]

Not true. Obama has spent less, and expanded the debt less than any other president since Ike.

Unlike the "spend us into oblivion" right wingers like Reagan and W,..

That graph is misleading as it attributes none of FY2009 to Obama other than the stimulus, even though Bush signed a continuing resolution which only covered the first half of FY2012. Obama owns the second half of FY2009, which that graphs omits.

No, it is not deceiving and Obama is not responsible for the 2009 fiscal budget...it is YOU who is mistaken and have not taken the time to research it for yourself and are just mouthing off what you have been told and time and time again you all are corrected on this false assumption or yours yet you neglect to absorb the truth.

Please, for the love of God, read the full link below...it is very informative and enlightening....read it all, it is very thorough.

FactCheck.org : Obama?s Spending: ?Inferno? or Not?

------------------------------------------------

If you want to take the 200 billion at most, that Obama affected bush's budget with, then you would in turn have to count what President Bush did when he first took office and take that spending and tax cuts out of Clinton's last budget for fiscal 2001....since president Bush gave us all a tax break and stimulus before Clinton's last fiscal budget for 2001 was over on September 30th.

Why don't you just wake up and smell the coffee. In March 2009, President Obama signed the Omibus Spending Bill that wrapped up nine separate budgets into one. The $410 billion bill funded most of the federal agencies, and replaced the continuing resolution that was about to expire. Obama had a Democrat congress, and could have had that omnibus bill modified in any way he chose. He didn't change it, he signed it. Bush had threatened to veto it because of excessive spending.

In addition, you fail to realize that most of the almost $800 billion TARP funding that raised the deficit above a trillion dollars and added the same to the national debt was paid back to the treasury and should have been deducted from the total run up by Bush. Obama spent it, he should get the credit for that debt.

Consequently, Obama can properly be giver credit for over $6.7 trillion dollars of new debt that he ran up in just over four short years. One third of the total ran up by all presidents before him.

 

[Faun]

United States - GDP - real growth rate - Historical Data Graphs per Year

You have a very bizarre definition for "unparalleled prospertity" given those 7 years were the worst over any 7 year period before then going all the way to 1952.

7 year periods of real GDP (1951-2007)

View attachment 24725

Worst, compared to what?

I already showed -- compared to the 55 years prior.

During George Bush's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $10,129,800,000,000 to $14,081,700,000,000. That is a 35.45% increase over those 8 years. During Bill Clinton's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $6,092,500,000,000 to $10,129,800,000,000. That was a 66.26% increase over those eight years, but it was fueled by both the dot.com boom and the housing boom. Both bubbles. The dot.com boom burst in the last year of Clinton's term, causing the economy to flatten out, and the housing boom began to sputter as Bush took office.

Since Bush left office, the economy has grown from $14,081,700,000,000 to $15,851,200,000,000. That is a 12.56% increase over Obama's 4 years. Evem more dismal if you look at it in constant 2005 dollars.

What would you expect after going throught the worst recession since the Great Depression?

 

[Faun]

The article was penned by a left winger, and is not fact. It starts with claiming that Obama is not responsible for the 2009 budget by ignoring the fact that Obama signed most of the spending bills in that budget, and that Bush had threatened to veto those bills.

Consequently, if one can get by with ignoring the huge jump in spending in the 2009 budget, one can falsely show a much lower spending increase.

A large number of the figures put out by this administration, and/or its apologists try to pretend that 2009 never existed. Hell, if we ignore the job losses in 2009, we can pretend that Obama actually created jobs, so lets start counting from 2010.

Which bill(s) did Obama sign in 2009 that caused those massive job losses?

And excellent example of "quick, change the subject".

How is challenging someone to prove what they clam, "changing the subject?"

You pointed to Democrats starting the job count attributable to Obama in 2010 -- I think that's a fair assessment. So I asked you what bill(s) Obama passed in 2009 that caused job losses, since you apparently think he's to blame.

Not only do you avoid answering, but now you're trying to deflect from answering by claiming I'm tryng to change the subject (which I merely responded to something you said).

 

[Erand7899]

You have a very bizarre definition for "unparalleled prospertity" given those 7 years were the worst over any 7 year period before then going all the way to 1952.

7 year periods of real GDP (1951-2007)

View attachment 24725

Worst, compared to what?

I already showed -- compared to the 55 years prior.

During George Bush's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $10,129,800,000,000 to $14,081,700,000,000. That is a 35.45% increase over those 8 years. During Bill Clinton's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $6,092,500,000,000 to $10,129,800,000,000. That was a 66.26% increase over those eight years, but it was fueled by both the dot.com boom and the housing boom. Both bubbles. The dot.com boom burst in the last year of Clinton's term, causing the economy to flatten out, and the housing boom began to sputter as Bush took office.

Since Bush left office, the economy has grown from $14,081,700,000,000 to $15,851,200,000,000. That is a 12.56% increase over Obama's 4 years. Evem more dismal if you look at it in constant 2005 dollars.

What would you expect after going throught the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Bush went through two recessions. And, this recession was over in June of 2009. We still have not recovered and you are running out of excuses.

 

[Erand7899]

Which bill(s) did Obama sign in 2009 that caused those massive job losses?

And excellent example of "quick, change the subject".

How is challenging someone to prove what they clam, "changing the subject?"

You pointed to Democrats starting the job count attributable to Obama in 2010 -- I think that's a fair assessment. So I asked you what bill(s) Obama passed in 2009 that caused job losses, since you apparently think he's to blame.

Not only do you avoid answering, but now you're trying to deflect from answering by claiming I'm tryng to change the subject (which I merely responded to something you said).

No, I never avoid answering any legitimate question, but your question was not only not legitimate, it contributed nothing to the debate. I never said, or apparently thought, that Clinton was responsible for the job losses in 2009, but those job losses are part of his term and are countable in his claim for jobs created.

Bush didn't cause any job losses either. The economy went into recession in late 2007, and there wasn't a damn thing Bush could have done to prevent it. The bursting of the housing boom, and the subsequent dry up of credit caused the recession. Bush didn't sign any bills that caused the resultant job losses.

 

[Faun]

Worst, compared to what?

I already showed -- compared to the 55 years prior.

During George Bush's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $10,129,800,000,000 to $14,081,700,000,000. That is a 35.45% increase over those 8 years. During Bill Clinton's 8 years, the economy grew (in current dollars) from $6,092,500,000,000 to $10,129,800,000,000. That was a 66.26% increase over those eight years, but it was fueled by both the dot.com boom and the housing boom. Both bubbles. The dot.com boom burst in the last year of Clinton's term, causing the economy to flatten out, and the housing boom began to sputter as Bush took office.

Since Bush left office, the economy has grown from $14,081,700,000,000 to $15,851,200,000,000. That is a 12.56% increase over Obama's 4 years. Evem more dismal if you look at it in constant 2005 dollars.

What would you expect after going throught the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Bush went through two recessions. And, this recession was over in June of 2009. We still have not recovered and you are running out of excuses.

Again, we went through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We lost about 4.7% of GDP and no less than 12 million jobs to un/under employment during that period.

How quickly do you think it takes to recover from that?

 

[Erand7899]

I already showed -- compared to the 55 years prior.


What would you expect after going throught the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Bush went through two recessions. And, this recession was over in June of 2009. We still have not recovered and you are running out of excuses.

Again, we went through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We lost about 4.7% of GDP and no less than 12 million jobs to un/under employment during that period.

How quickly do you think it takes to recover from that?

One climbs out of a deep hole at the same rate that one climbs out of a shallow hole. We are not climbing out, we are thrashing around at the bottom, while the President blames everyone in sight for hiding the ladder.

 

[Faun]

And excellent example of "quick, change the subject".

How is challenging someone to prove what they clam, "changing the subject?"

You pointed to Democrats starting the job count attributable to Obama in 2010 -- I think that's a fair assessment. So I asked you what bill(s) Obama passed in 2009 that caused job losses, since you apparently think he's to blame.

Not only do you avoid answering, but now you're trying to deflect from answering by claiming I'm tryng to change the subject (which I merely responded to something you said).

No, I never avoid answering any legitimate question, but your question was not only not legitimate, it contributed nothing to the debate. I never said, or apparently thought, that Clinton was responsible for the job losses in 2009, but those job losses are part of his term and are countable in his claim for jobs created.

WTF?? I said nothing about Clinton. Perhaps you meant to say Obama? Assuming that's the case, you can't hold Obama responsible for job losses that he had nothing to do with, simply because he moved into the White House.

I do find it amusing though that you mocked Democrats for not attributing job losses to Obama in 2009 because he inherited a huge mess where employment fell by 1.2 million jobs in January '09 alone, but then say you don't personally hold him responsible for that either. So then why were you mocking Demcorats???

Bush didn't cause any job losses either. The economy went into recession in late 2007, and there wasn't a damn thing Bush could have done to prevent it. The bursting of the housing boom, and the subsequent dry up of credit caused the recession. Bush didn't sign any bills that caused the resultant job losses.

Not true. Though Bush was not the only president to sign legislation which led to the real estate crash (Clinton signed Pub.L. 106–102, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), Bush signed S.2239, the FHA Downpayment Simplification Act of 2002 and S.811, the American Dream Downpayment Act.

But signing those bills was not the biggest problem -- signing them without adding oversight was what caused the crash. And Republicans had two bills die in the Senate which could have prevented the meltdown ... S. 1508: Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2003 and S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

 

[Faun]

Bush went through two recessions. And, this recession was over in June of 2009. We still have not recovered and you are running out of excuses.

Again, we went through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We lost about 4.7% of GDP and no less than 12 million jobs to un/under employment during that period.

How quickly do you think it takes to recover from that?

One climbs out of a deep hole at the same rate that one climbs out of a shallow hole. We are not climbing out, we are thrashing around at the bottom, while the President blames everyone in sight for hiding the ladder.

We lost over a million jobs in a single month when Obama became president. We're now gaining jobs. GDP was negative 9% when he became president. It's now positive.

To deny that we're climbing out of the abyss Bush left is to deny reality.

 

[Sallow]

Under President Barack Obama, the national debt has grown by more than $6 trillion, the largest increase under any president in U.S. history.

According to the Treasury Department, the national public debt now stands at $16,687,289,180,215.37.

On the first day of Obama’s first term, the debt was $10.626 trillion.

Under President George W. Bush, the debt grew $4.9 trillion in eight years.

Presently, the federal government is embroiled in a contentious debate over $85 billion in budget cuts, or 0.005% as a percentage of the national debt.
- See more at: National Debt Explodes $6 Trillion Under Obama

Break it down for us Steph..

How much of that debt was actually initiated by President Obama..

Go for it!

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Under President Barack Obama, the national debt has grown by more than $6 trillion, the largest increase under any president in U.S. history.

According to the Treasury Department, the national public debt now stands at $16,687,289,180,215.37.

On the first day of Obama’s first term, the debt was $10.626 trillion.

Under President George W. Bush, the debt grew $4.9 trillion in eight years.

Presently, the federal government is embroiled in a contentious debate over $85 billion in budget cuts, or 0.005% as a percentage of the national debt.
- See more at: National Debt Explodes $6 Trillion Under Obama

Wait a minute, wait a minute - how is it that the debt "only" grew 4.9 when Bush was in office but on the first day Obusha took office it was over 10 trillion? That's around 5 trillion that came out of nowhere.