Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: New national debt data

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like

    New national debt data

    Dumb headline aside, how does this jive with the previous thread claiming that Bush raise the debt so much more than Obama?

    [QUOTE]
    New national debt data: It's growing about $3 million a minute, even during his vacation
    August 23, 2011 | 5:32 am

    Swallow all liquids in your mouth before reading any further.
    Updated numbers for the national debt are just out: It's now $14,639,000,000,000.
    When Barack Obama took the oath of office twice on Jan. 20, 2009, [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html"]CBS' amazing number cruncher Mark Knoller [/URL]reports, the national debt was $10,626,000,000,000.
    That means the debt that our federal government owes a whole lot of somebodies including China [B]has increased $4,247,000,000,000 in just 945 days. That's the fastest increase under any president ever.[/B]
    Remember the day the Democrat promised to close the embarrassing Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility within one year? That day the national debt increased $4,247,000,000. And each day since that the facility hasn't been closed.
    Same for the day in 2009 when Obama flew all the way out to Denver to sign the $787 billion stimulus bill that was going to hold national unemployment beneath 8% instead of the 9.1% we got today anyway? Another $4,247,000,000 that day. And every day since, even Obama golfing and vacation days.
    Same sum for the day Obama flew Air Force One nearly four hours roundtrip to Columbus, Ohio for a 10-minute speech about how well the stimulus was working in the politically crucial Buckeye state. Ohio's unemployment rate just jumped to 9% from 8.8% anyway.
    Or last week's three-day Midwestern tour in the president's new $1.1 million Death Star bus? National debt went up $16,988,000,000 while he rode around speaking and buying ice cream cones.
    Numbers with that many digits are hard to grasp, even for a Harvard head. So, let's put it another way:
    One billion seconds ago Bill Clinton was nearing the end of his two terms and George W. Bush's baseball collection was still on the shelves in the Austin governor's office.
    The nation's debt increased $4.9 trillion under President Bush too, btw. But it took him 2,648 days to do it. Obama will surpass that sum during this term
    Now, how to portray a trillion, or 1,000 billions. One trillion seconds ago much of North America was still covered by ice sheets hundreds of feet thick. And the land was dotted by only a few dozen Starbuck's.
    Obama is saying yes, we can get control of the national debt. But ominously every time he says that he adds that trillions of dollars in infrastructure repairs are badly needed across the country. And with interest rates so low, according to the thinking on Obama's planet, now is an excellent time to borrow even more money.
    So, it looks like not too long before Americans learn what comes after 1,000 trillions.
    It's quadrillion. But for Bernanke's sake, please don't tell anyone in Washington.
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4114358]Dumb headline aside, how does this jive with the previous thread claiming that Bush raise the debt so much more than Obama?[/QUOTE]

    that thread gave credit for policies began under Bush for Bush. for example the tax cuts added multiple hundreds of billions to the debt, Obama extended them but it was a Bush policy. the wars started under Bush (not counted in the budget until 2009) but continued under Obama, are being credited as Bush debt.

    You can agree or not, but that's how that article was phrased.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [IMG]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/248944-galleryV9-nnhb.jpg[/IMG]

    US Debt by President

    [url]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/us-debt-accumulation-by-president/[/url]

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    While the Occupy Wall Street commies scream for still higher government spending, let’s see how much progress has already been made toward Obama’s evident objective — spending the nation into Cloward-Piven collapse:

    [IMG]http://moonbattery.com/obama-deficit-blowout.gif[/IMG]

    Commenting on the astonishing numbers above, the Wall Street Journal notes that the federal leviathan that is suffocating the economy has just finished its biggest spending year ever, with its second largest annual budget deficit ever.

    The Obama years have racked up the three largest deficits, both in absolute amounts and as a share of GDP, since Hitler still terrorized Europe. Some increase in deficits was inevitable given the recession, but to have deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion two years into a purported economic recovery simply hasn’t happened in modern U.S. history. Yet President Obama fiercely resisted even the token spending cuts for fiscal 2011 pressed by House Republicans earlier this year.

    The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Those are the numbers to point to the next time someone says that the Bush tax rates are the main cause of our current fiscal woes.

    It’s amazing to think that as recently as 2007, America still had a future.

    [url]http://moonbattery.com/?p=3489[/url]

    [IMG]http://moonbattery.com/obama-one-percent.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://www.iaza.com/work/111013C/iaza12396776455100.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://drudgereport.com/ow.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Medal_Order_of_Obama_160.gif[/IMG]
    [B]Teachable Truthiness™[/B]
    Last edited by Frequent Flyer; 10-19-2011 at 10:42 PM.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,376
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4199362][IMG]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/248944-galleryV9-nnhb.jpg[/IMG]

    US Debt by President

    [url]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/us-debt-accumulation-by-president/[/url][/QUOTE]

    FWIW, bit...I'm not mathematician, but using percentages instead of real numbers is a way of skewing the results.

    Think about it.

    Which sums are more? Bush's 42% of preceding debt...or Obama's near 20% of preceding debt...INCLUDING Bush's 42% increase?

    The percentage may be lower....but the dollar amount is just about the same. And we still have 5 more years of Obama's presidency to go.... ;)

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4199447]FWIW, bit...I'm not mathematician, but using percentages instead of real numbers is a way of skewing the results.

    Think about it.

    Which sums are more? Bush's 42% of preceding debt...or Obama's near 20% of preceding debt...INCLUDING Bush's 42% increase?

    The percentage may be lower....but the dollar amount is just about the same. And we still have 5 more years of Obama's presidency to go.... ;)[/QUOTE]

    Solid post up until the end... That's just hopefulness on my part though...

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4199447]FWIW, bit...I'm not mathematician, but using percentages instead of real numbers is a way of skewing the results.

    Think about it.

    Which sums are more? Bush's 42% of preceding debt...or Obama's near 20% of preceding debt...INCLUDING Bush's 42% increase?

    The percentage may be lower....but the dollar amount is just about the same. And we still have 5 more years of Obama's presidency to go.... ;)[/QUOTE]

    No plz don't let that happen.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4199447]FWIW, bit...I'm not mathematician, but using percentages instead of real numbers is a way of skewing the results.

    Think about it.

    Which sums are more? Bush's 42% of preceding debt...or Obama's near 20% of preceding debt...INCLUDING Bush's 42% increase?

    The percentage may be lower....but the dollar amount is just about the same. And we still have 5 more years of Obama's presidency to go.... ;)[/QUOTE]

    this is true but it's also true that Obama's debt is in many ways reactive to Bush's policies. Obama put 4 trillion of the af/pak wars on his budget and also had to expand unemployment and welfare, and put a stimulus out there... due to the downturn. End of the day Bush's effect of the deficit is huge and I wonder why no one said dick about it until Obama was elected. Im not calling Racism but I am calling double standards.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,172
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4199763]this is true but it's also true that Obama's debt is in many ways reactive to Bush's policies. Obama put 4 trillion of the af/pak wars on his budget and also had to expand unemployment and welfare, and put a stimulus out there... due to the downturn. End of the day Bush's effect of the deficit is huge and I wonder why no one said dick about it until Obama was elected. Im not calling Racism but I am calling double standards.[/QUOTE]

    From a very conservative site in January 2005. There were a lot of calls for Bush to stop spending. You just have to look for them. Another link below.

    [URL]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6417&keywords=bush+spending[/URL]

    [QUOTE]The Vital Need for Spending Restraint in the Second Bush Termby John Berthoud 01/26/2005
    On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued somber new deficit projections. And not surprisingly, many big spenders in Congress are blaming President Bush's tax cuts. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has opined, "rather than addressing the problem, the President will deepen it by proposing a budget next month that seeks to add another $1.8 trillion in debt by extending huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." However, the efforts to link tax relief to the nation's deficits ignore one small thing: the facts. The reality is that current federal deficits have not been caused by Americans being under-taxed. Instead, a review of the numbers shows that even just very modest spending restraint over the past half dozen years would have meant no deficit problem. If the federal government had merely limited total spending growth over the past six years to 3.2% annually, CBO would today be projecting a small surplus for Fiscal Year 2005 (which runs from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005), instead of a $368 billion deficit. And make no mistake -- the spending explosion can't even be blamed on defense or homeland security. Almost every cabinet department has seen a big spending run-up. For instance, just between 1999 and 2004, spending at the Department of Commerce rose by 23 percent, spending at the Department of Agriculture rose by 24 percent, and spending at the Department of Labor rose by 82 percent.[B] It's long past time for President Bush and Congress to get serious about Washington's spending addiction[/B].[/QUOTE]

    [URL]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=12233&keywords=bush+spending[/URL]

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4199763]Im not calling Racism but I am calling double standards.[/QUOTE]

    What, are only YOU allowed to change your mind on things?

    After all, you've flipped on many issues since Obama's election. Why shouldn't others be permitted the same without the spectre of racism claims, which of course you're not making but just had to mention?

    By the way, if you had any memory of this forum pre-Obama, which you clearly don't, plenty of our resident Conservative/right-leaners decried spending during Bush as well. Bush was not conservative on a number of issues, immigration and spending being A and B.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4199793]
    plenty of our resident Conservative/right-leaners decried spending during Bush as well. Bush was not conservative on a number of issues, immigration and spending being A and B.[/QUOTE]

    fair enough. Next question, why does any1 believe the next GOP President would be more fiscally responsible than Bush?

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,586
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4114376]that thread gave credit for policies began under Bush for Bush. for example the tax cuts added multiple hundreds of billions to the debt, Obama extended them but it was a Bush policy. the wars started under Bush (not counted in the budget until 2009) but continued under Obama, are being credited as Bush debt.

    You can agree or not, but that's how that article was phrased.[/QUOTE]

    It's truly a funny thing hearing liberals slam the Bush tax cuts. Essentially this cut essentially completely eliminated the income tax burden for the majority of Americans. In essence it moved us to a society in which the wealthy or "productive" members of society pay the full burden so that the bottom half don't have to pay anything. The cut was successful in that after it was implemented we had a period of economic boom and alongside the boom federal tax revenues increased. If at the time you had asked a liberal democrat to craft a tax plan we would have gotten the exact same thing.

    I personally think the income tax structure is pretty good as it is. The corporate tax structure needs to be adjusted and it would be nice to simplify things but as a whole our current system is compassionate and fair for all sides. The wealthiest 10% hold 70% of the wealth and pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the people pay nothing. In a prosperous and wealthy society this is an ideal mix. The issue today with liberals is that it is never enough. They aren't happy with paying no taxes. They want to pay no taxes and get more government entitlements. They want to hit up the top 20% for more money. They claim that taking more from the group shouldering the vast majority of the burden today is fair. They are wrong. The system we have is extremely "progressive" as it is. Screaming for more makes liberals and OWS types look like pigs.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4199863]fair enough. Next question, why does any1 believe the next GOP President would be more fiscally responsible than Bush?[/QUOTE]

    You clearly haven't been paying attention to recent elections or public opinion.

    I'd say the short answer is that GOP voters don't want to elect Bush-like folk anymore because it only leads to Obama-like folk.

    Bad begets worse.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4199863]fair enough. Next question, why does any1 believe the next GOP President would be more fiscally responsible than Bush?[/QUOTE]

    If it's Romney, I don't.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,586
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4199912]If it's Romney, I don't.[/QUOTE]

    Romneys entire work history involved streamlining operations. He balanced a Mass budget that had been billions in deficit when he took over. He streamlined companies and took them to profitability. He cleaned up the financial mess that was the 2002 Winter Olympics when he took over.

    Of all of the candidates he is the one I trust the most to streamline government and eliminate wasteful spending and harmful regulations.

    If the goal is to elect someone to completely transform the system and tax code, essentially blowing the whole thing up and starting from scratch hes not the guy. His plans and past history tell us he will be an effective executive, he should be able to create savings and efficiencies by streamlining government. Most important he will be able to get behind and sell to the public plans by other fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan. The knock on him is that he does not push a conservative social agenda. He is not a militant anti-abortionist. He doesn't really even talk about gay marriage type nonesense issues. I say who cares. The man is a fiscal conservative with successful executive experience in both government and private business. This is an ideal and highly qualified candidate.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4199932]The man is a fiscal conservative with successful executive experience in both government and private business. This is an ideal and highly qualified candidate.[/QUOTE]

    Save your propaganda for the Party Loyalists.

    Romney is a Liberal "Moderate" Republican, and will rule as a Liberal Republican.

    There is no reason whatsoever to predict that a Romney Administration will cut either the total debt or the total deficit one he's elected.

    Romney is McCain II, and will lose the exact same way.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4199937]Save your propaganda for the Party Loyalists.

    Romney is a Liberal "Moderate" Republican, and will rule as a Liberal Republican.

    There is no reason whatsoever to predict that a Romney Administration will cut either the total debt or the total deficit one he's elected.

    Romney is McCain II, and will lose the exact same way.[/QUOTE]

    'Fish,
    'Liberal' in what way though? Legit question.

    Chiefs referenced some things that Romney did that seem to indicate that he is a cost cutter with business acumen to back it up.

    What strikes you as liberal about him.

    I'm trying to parse through the conflicting info.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;4199979]'Fish,
    'Liberal' in what way though? Legit question.[/quote]

    Backed a Obama-Style Healthcare system for his state. On that alone I would not vote for him.

    Check his spending and policies whilst in office. The idea he's a real fiscal conservative small-Governemnt type....is simply not backed by the details of his State Govt. while in office and the policies he supported.

    On this aspect, my view aligns with Mark Levin. Romeny may be better than Obama, but he's not a strict conservative in any real matter of policy.

    His social agenda is irrelevant to me, as I have zero support for conservative social policies in general.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,586
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4199937]Save your propaganda for the Party Loyalists.

    Romney is a Liberal "Moderate" Republican, and will rule as a Liberal Republican.

    There is no reason whatsoever to predict that a Romney Administration will cut either the total debt or the total deficit one he's elected.

    Romney is McCain II, and will lose the exact same way.[/QUOTE]

    If I was a party propagandist I would likely have a problem with his lack of social values street cred. My point is that I personally like the fact that this candidate does not play to the base by running on irrelevant social values issues. That type of "conservatism" is a major turn off for a large swath in the center of the political spectrum. For me as a (im going to coin a term here) "Conservatarian" Romney is pretty ideal as a candidate. Is he perfect? No one is. But I agree with most of his policy positions. Certainly more than any of the other candidates.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,337
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4199984]Backed a Obama-Style Healthcare system for his state. On that alone I would not vote for him.

    Check his spending and policies whilst in office. The idea he's a real fiscal conservative small-Governemnt type....is simply not backed by the details of his State Govt. while in office and the policies he supported.

    On this aspect, my view aligns with Mark Levin. Romeny may be better than Obama, but he's not a strict conservative in any real matter of policy.

    His social agenda is irrelevant to me, as I have zero support for conservative social policies in general.[/QUOTE]

    Certainly areas of concern and what I continue to dig into. Although I have to view it through the lense of a Republican governing an uber-liberal state, trying to get done what he can.
    Standing on pure conservative principles is worthless if nothing gets accomplished.

    I don't believe there is a strict conservative candidate that is electable, so I find myself looking for the next best thing.
    Gingrich is the smartest (and probably most conservative) guy up there, but I don't think he is electible. He should probably be on a short list of Chief of Staff candidates for whoever is the candidate though.

    I have to look more at the Romneycare plan to understand the similarities and differences.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us