So what are President Obama's big ticket items that added / adding up to the debt?
NO wonder Obimbo hates the Tea Party. Worrying about debt is racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5xrptGjMzE#t=29
$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama
August 4, 2014 - 4:04 AM
By Terry Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.
That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.
The total federal debt first passed the $7-trillion mark on Jan. 15, 2004, after President George W. Bush had been in office almost three years.
federal-debt
When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of the close of business on July 30, 2014, it had risen to $17,618,599,653,160.19--up $6,991,722,604,247.11 from Obama’s first inauguration day.
By the close of business on July 31, 2014, it had risen to $17,687,136,723,410.59—up $7,060,259,674,497.51 since Obama first inauguration day.
As of June, there were 115,097,000 households in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The $17,687,136,723,410.59 in debt the federal government had accumulated as of the end of July equaled $153,671.57 per household.
The $7,060,259,674,497.51 in new debt that the federal government has taken on during Obama’s presidency equals $61,341.82 per household.
The median household income in the United States in 2012 (the latest year estimated) was $51,017. Thus, President Obama has increased the federal debt by more than the typical household’s annual income.
...claims are near an eight-year low, the unemployment rate is 6.2% and employers have added more than 200,000 jobs per month for six months in a row, a streak that hasn't happened for 17 years. Funny, I haven't heard John "The Orange Parrot" Boehner lately squawking: "Where are the jobs?" But if he did, the mindless Republicans would say: "Yeah, where are the jobs?"
Get a hobby already!
And that the American people's real wages DROPPED by $5k/year under Obummer.
And that would help explain his current 37% approval in the latest poll on the economy.
But keep on with your bad self. And your bad economy.
1. Almost 5 million full time jobs were lost in 2008 - 2010 due to the financial crisis. Add up all the income taxes lost from these job losses.
2. 4 more years of loss of revenue from Bush tax cuts.
3. Iraq war for 2 years and Afghanistan war for 6 years.
Sure all these will add up $ 4 trillion.
when Barry was calling Bush "un-American" when Bush reached the $4 trillion mark in his presidency.
Wasn't it Senator Obummer saying something about Bush "destroying our children's future" and putting the debt on the "Chinese credit card" or something? Hmmm...
Just one of a VERY VERY VERY long list of Obama's hypocritical statements & policies.
Now while you are thinking about that one, let’s remember that nearly 50% of the increase in the total federal debt is for entitlement programs, like Social Security, Medicare and the VA. Mr. Obama has almost nothing to do with these increases since (1) they are set by Congress; and (2) are a function of demographics. Yes, Jack , the population is aging but is living longer – we have more old people and they are living well into their 80s. Demands on Medicare and Social Security are increasing far faster than the drafters of either program anticipated. As to the VA, of course, we have to spend more to take care of the thousands of soldiers wounded in Mr. Bush’s two wars.
So if you want to show that Mr. Obama is a profligate spender with little to show for it, Jack, you have to focus on the “marketable debt –i.e., loans from third parties - not the total debt. During the Bush admin, marketable debt doubled; marketable debt during the Obama admin has also doubled and a little more.
So the marketable debt has indeed increased under Mr. Obama. Can we attribute this increase to Mr. Obama? Not really Jack bc you are forgetting that the Federal Reserve is the one that borrowed $2.2 T as of February of this year. They made the decision to buy these securities independent from Mr. Obama.
But wait Jack, your job is not yet done. I’m guessing that a shrewd businessman like yourself only borrows when rates are low. Well let’s look at the interest rate the gov paid on average during the Bush admin. Wow – the gov paid a whopping 6.6% at the start of the Bush admin. As of Jan 2014, the gov on average paid only 1.9% on its marketable debt.
So I gather that what you are telling me Jack is that, to the extent we attribute the marketable debt increase to Mr. Obama, Mr. Obama made a pretty shrewd move – borrowing when rates were historically low.
But wait-you still are not finished- how much of the increase has Mr. Obama actually spent? You don’t know?
Jack, you’ve go a lot of work to do . LO
Obama has ZERO desire or plan to do so. That's not "shrewd" Mari, it is utterly irresponsible.
Nice try with the "increase in the total federal debt is for entitlement programs, like Social Security, Medicare and the VA. Mr. Obama has almost nothing to do with these increases..."
You are saying the President of the United States has almost NOTHING to do with those increases? Nothing Mari? And where is Obama on the campaign stump about entitlement reform? Debt reform? Where's his repayment plan?
Maybe you can rummage thru Mr. Obama's waste basket while you are kissing his feet. There is a document in there. (It use to be on his hard drive but I heard that that crashed. lol)
It will say "Bowles/Simpson" on the cover. You know, the debt commission that HE formed, that HE hand picked, that HE threw in the trash.
But you're right, Mari. THIS president really does have NOTHING to do with entitlement/debt reform and responsibility for same...on that we agree! lo
but for failure after he came into office to reform the existing entitlement programs.
Well, that is a reasonable, if quixotic, criticism. Of course, you have exactly the same criticism of Bush, Clinton, Bush Reagan ad so on – none of them could figure out how to reform the entitlement system either. So it sounds like you agree that Mr. Obama did not “cause” the debt increase at all – he just did not stop it, as was true of all of his predecessors.
As to Bowles Simpson, I do agree that the income level for Obamacare subsidies should be lowered but beyond that what did they say but the usual “cut the waste, cut the fraud, reform the tax code” – the same thing every president promises to do during the campaign but never achieves in office. I could have given that advice.
But to say that Mr. Obama was "utterly irresponsible" is to ignore the gridlock that stifled all of his budget proposals -including increasing revenue - and led to the sequestration cuts. Did you forget about that? To say he simply disregarded the plan is a bit misleading, don't you think?
Nonetheless I will say that Bowles Simpson for all their faults did a better job than the "Republican health care plan" that you were trying to sell us last month. LO
Add to that his anti-business policies which have hurt many companies and left them with a lack of confidence in the federal govt/economy which lead to a lack of growth. The lack of a growing economy has greatly hurt cash flow into the treasury, making the debt worse.
There was no gridlock for some time with Dems owning both Houses and the WH. In addition to that, how many years in a row did the Dem controlled Senate not even bother to put up a budget? As I am sure you well know, only 51 votes are needed to secure a budget, not 60. So never any gridlock for Harry Reid and company at any time.
I have stated in many other posts on the P&R relating to my disapproval of Bush's spending. I actually STARTED one. lol. But he's gone. Been gone for 6 years. The "its ok because other presidents have done it" bullshit doesn't work with me and it shouldn't work for you either.
Obama blamed Bush for his debt. And you want me to pass on blaming Barry for his? Sorry Mari, it doesn't work that way
"Borrowing while interest rates are low" is one of the absolute stupidest things you have ever said here.
Mare were the people who took out adjustable mortgages when interest rates were low "shrewd" in your opinion?
Borrowing money when rates are low is only shrewd when one of two factors are in play. One is if you actually "lock in" those low rates, the other is if you have the ability to repay the obligation if and when your rates go up. Neither of those factors are in play where the national debt is concerned. WHEN, not if interest rates go up, the percentage of our GDP going to debt service is going to be just like the taxi cab driver who bought a half million dollar house with an ARM, thinking that he was just as SHREWD as you and Obama.
Please tell me you were drunk when you wrote this, or I am going to have ST C revoke your computer privileges.
So what are President Obama's big ticket items that added / adding up to the debt?
Stop screaming. I gave some details about how loss in revenue and status quo on spending are adding to the national debt.
Why not give some big items where the current President has squandered the money? If you don't know any, then you are just a ignorant right winger who just want to hate the President.
Obama has NO desire to fix what is broken.
Cases in point:
1) Throwing Bowles/Simpson in the trash.
2) Taking money out of program like Medicare which is going broke to pay for another massive federal entitlement program in Obamacare.
3) No plan to fix social security
That's good government to you? Really?
but he was shouted down by the libs afraid of even talking about the fact that there was/is a problem.
At least I can take some solace in the fact that idiots like our loony leftard OP will actually NEED Social Security sometime in the near future, while I wrote off the chances off ever collecting a nickel of my own money decades ago, and took steps to make sure I would never need to.
They feel it is their issue and only they could "fix it" but they never even try.
Just so much easier to say the R's are pushing granny off a cliff and to spout the "you're gambling on the stock market" crap than to actually attempt to make government work more effectively.
As a percentage of our GDP, our debt has never been higher than it was during WW2. The result? The USA became the strongest superpower in the history of man.
When an economy crashes, you suddenly lose tax revenues. If spending remains the same, debt increases. If you cut spending, then you reduce aggregate demand in an economy already shrinking, making the economy worse.
Therefore, higher debt levels is the price you pay for going through a recession. To avoid this, avoid bubble economics. This means making sure that demand can meet supply, i.e. raising the minimum wage, not cutting taxes on the rich and corporations.
Now that our economy has (mostly) recovered from the Bush Depression of '08, we can start cutting back spending, and raise revenues. This is the only financially responsible position. Everyone should start paying more in taxes, but the rich particularly should pay a lot more. Spending should also go down dramatically
OK, here's one. Almost every other economy had just been destroyed (friend and foe). Not too hard to dominate for a while when you're the last man standing.
During WWII it peaked at about 120%. How long before we're back to that level? Another 10 to 15 years maybe? Unless there's another collapse first. When it happens again will the U.S. again be the lone king of the hill?
I never explicitly stated a casual factor. But it is there. So much government spending got the economy moving again, an economy that had lacked strong demand for a long time.
It didn't matter that other countries economies had been destroyed. In those days, the USA had a very isolationist economy. If anything, the state that Europe was in cost us more than helped us.
Dept to GDP levels during WW2 was closer to 145% if memory serves. During the Great Recession it got up to about 100%, but it's been going down since.
The fact of the matter is that the USA can take on a lot more debt than we have right now. We have our own central bank.
we have an inflation crisis that has robbed the middle class. In ten years, I foresee no small businesses with only large Wal-Marts, Dollar Generals, mega-banks....
-- Modified on 8/5/2014 6:33:28 AM
When I rolled into California 37 years ago I settled in Huntington Beach "Surf City USA" for the first 10 years. Main Street at Pacific Coast Highway (at the "Pier") was a strip of rustic surf shops, bikini shops, privately owned sandwich shacks, bicycle and Mo-ped rentals, skate board shop, and a couple of seedy watering holes.
Last week I had opportunity to again tour the aforementioned venue for the first time in nearly 20 years. EVERYTHING now has a "Corporate" name on front of the buildings. Several LARGE multi-story hotels imposingly loom over the once innocuous intersection of PCH & Main. Gone is the "rustic" flavor of "Surf City"; now replaced by what is an open air, multi-level shopping-mall with nationally recognized chain stores, candy shops and restaurants from top to bottom.
-- Modified on 8/5/2014 6:33:28 AM
multi-generations will be living together. Surburban lawns will be used for gardens. The middle (debt) class will lose their access to credit and consumerism and forced in to servitude to repay with no such luck as wiping the slate clean with bankrupcy. The debt generation will be gone, and I am sure the banks will get another bail out.
Don't worry, you are in good company with Mr. Krugman.
Explain to me, being a business owner, how I am better suited to take on new employees/risk if you are going to tax me more and thus take away from he same money pool that I would have used to pay new hires?
You must have seen CBO's report that raising the minimum wage to just $10.10 will destroy 500,000 of those jobs and the poorest of the poor will be the first to go since the labor pool would be bigger.
Nice to see your little tax increase on the poor as well. Just the shot in the arm they need. lol.
And if you think the economy has mostly recovered under Obama you proly really do believe in an economy that never has any bubbles. Utopia its called, correct?
Real wages has gone from an average of $53,000 under Bush to $48,000 under Obama. THATS a recovery?
Almost half of the jobs created under Obama are low paying service industry "McJobs" in a link I have sent out several times from none other than that far right war news organization called MSNBC.
Back to the corner for ya. Tell BP and Mari I said hi. lol
...then maybe you shouldn't mix up micro and macro economics.
Businesses have different (i.e. short sighted) concerns than those that concern economists like Krugman. For instance, businesses see worker's wages as a loss to the business. An economist sees that not as a loss, but the primary source of aggregate demand in the economy.
Business owners do not hire new workers by "saving up" to hire them. Your "let's tax businesses less so they hire more people" theory is bunk.
What happens in the real world is that businesses hire people when there is DEMAND for that labor. If a business' taxes increases 10%, and their sales increase 25%, you'd be a fool not to hire more people (assuming non-changing production capacity).
Yes, there are some fundamental problems with our economy, but we don't have something like the housing bubble hanging over our heads. Our economy is on a more sound foundation today then it has been in quite a while. And no, Obama didn't have much to do with that.
Its easy for assholes like Krugman, from their Ivy League perch, drinking their Chardonnay and asking for extra arugula on their sandwich while telling businesses what they should/shouldn't be doing and what government can do to hurt them even further. He has NO skin in the game. He NEVER worries about staying in business another month or year. He is an academic, know it all, know nothing.
You/he clearly don't understand the mindset of a business owner. Many psychological factors go into a decision whether to expand payroll, not just demand for goods/services.Two of them is trust/fear in the near and mid term outlook on the economy and policies emanating from Wash, DC.
I constantly hear from this admin he wants my taxes to go even higher, he has increased my HC costs dramatically, he constantly add new regs, always looking for ways to make it easier for an employee to sue, he is always spouting minimum wage increases that would hurt MANY businesses bottom lines, etc etc etc
And please don't lecture me about how/why businesses hire "in the real world." You don't know jack shit about it. Listen to someone that does for a change.
I am the living example of the "real world" and in my real world, I will just NOT take the risk of hiring today only to possibly lay those people off a year from now b/c I have no clue what's coming down the pike next from this out of control, anti-business, maniacal president.
That's my reality Willy. Something you cant possibly get from an academic and a "macro" economic wizard like Krugman.
