111th Congress added more debt than first 100 Congresses COMBINED

[uscitizen]

you do.

But keep up the front.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Again those those numbers dishonestly exclude the OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!
When you include ALL deficit spending you get:
2002 $563 BILLION
2003 $592 BILLION
2004 $598 BILLION
2005 $574 BILLION
2006 $510 BILLION
2007 $549 BILLION
2008 $1.43 TRILLION

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

And for extra good pwny measure, Ima expose CS's sad attempt @ a rebuttal (FROM CBS) as BS:

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits

Again the dishonest Heritage Foundation phony deficit chart which leaves out Bush's OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING. 2008 alone had $1 TRILLION in OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING!!!!!!!!

The chart is a perfect example of how STUPID and GULLIBLE a person must be to be a CON$ervative. Off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is NOT "deficit spending!"

Welcome to the pwned list, you sad, nit picking troll.

The federal government has accumulated more new debt--$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury."

your exact words moron, you said the $3.22 trillion worth of debt is more than the first 100 combined.

-SIGH-

I thought you woulda learned your lesson by now, oh well. Link/image blitz pwning time:

Related:

Projected Deficit:
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

show me a news source not called the foundry, or fox news or sean hannity that backs this up?

(Newsroom America) -- Though it is being hailed as the most productive legislature in a generation, the 111th Congress was also one of the hardest on the U.S. Treasury, having added more red ink to the nation's debt than the country's first 100 congresses combined, a report said Tuesday.

Cybercast News Service said an analysis of the 111th Congress' fiscal legislation found that lawmakers added more than $3.2 trillion to the nation's debt, or $10,429.64 more per person.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/88460/report:_111th_congress_added_more_debt_than_first_100_congresses.html

then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math.

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, “You lie,” but we’ll settle for “You distort.”

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies and statistics.”)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

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.
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ive pwned your ass so many times its ridiculous. your article stated Obama added $3.22 Trillion to the US debt, and claimed it was more than all other congresses combined. while i simply pwned you by showing and proving that GWB added $4 trillion to debt. hmmmm basic math shows that $4 trillion is more than $3.22 trillion.

and your idea of privatization of SS lacked an real substance or spending controls. you simply wanted to give the tax dollars form SS to bankers on wall street. yup, after the govt had to bail them out, great idea jackass.

youre not only a failure, but an epic failure.

^^^^^^^

Ima give you one last chance to save some face here sheep. Not only are you unable to refute my facts, continue to deflect in that you're tryna talk bout GWB instead of HIS Congress which spent NOWHERE NEAR as much as the 111th, but my last post blows your silly CBS math outta the water.

Loss of tax revenue counts as debt, moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.

 

[Common Sense]

"As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced"
Obama: No More War Spending Tricks | Danger Room | Wired.com

Real Bush Numbers:
2002 $563 BILLION
2003 $592 BILLION
2004 $598 BILLION
2005 $574 BILLION
2006 $510 BILLION
2007 $549 BILLION
2008 $1.43 TRILLION (thanks edthecynic)

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I have posted recent, accurate, objective, factual, varied responses after being called out here. They really can't be refuted, as anyone who actually took the time to read that whole post would see THEY'RE COLD, HARD FACTS.

I have obviously more than proved my main point (deficit) "Common Sense" even admitted that.

He has little credibility left as anything else he posts will likely be as irrelevant, bias, or flawed as his 1st CBS link.

I dunno why Carb is here, that's the same sheep I megapwned with my Gallup poll after he claimed conservatism was "dead"

I shall tho be checking back in on this thread regularly, hopefully SOMEONE will FINALLY arrive with some real points..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have posted recent, accurate, objective, factual, varied responses after being called out here. They really can't be refuted, as anyone who actually took the time to read that whole post would see THEY'RE COLD, HARD FACTS.

I have obviously more than proved my main point (deficit) "Common Sense" even admitted that.

He has little credibility left as anything else he posts will likely be as irrelevant, bias, or flawed as his 1st CBS link.

I dunno why Carb is here, that's the same sheep I megapwned with my Gallup poll after he claimed conservatism was "dead"

I shall tho be checking back in on this thread regularly, hopefully SOMEONE will FINALLY arrive with some real points..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Your numbers don't work if they're adjusted for inflation, so your whole premise is horseshit.

 

[Common Sense]

actually you claimed that the debt was more than first 100 congresses, not the deficit. so once again youve pwned yourself.

maybe you should have bought a dictionary for xmas and started to read it. or maybe a high school eduction could help you with that too.

 

[uscitizen]

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.

you did not think they were really conservatives did you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.

you did not think they were really conservatives did you?

They are the 2nd Santa Claus in Jude Wanniski's 'Two Santa Clauses Theory'.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.

Yeah, and the excuse the dimwits used it would add to the deficit, but they didn't care about that when they pushed the screw America socialist health care bill through under a bunch of lies. Idiots!!!!

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.

Yeah, and the excuse the dimwits used it would add to the deficit, but they didn't care about that when they pushed the screw America socialist health care bill through under a bunch of lies. Idiots!!!!

Know what else is great, good for a LOL?

The lefty sheep here are raving bout some "off budget deficit" BS and the cost of the war WHEN OBAMA HAS ALREADY, LONG SINCE, MADE AFGHANISTAN HIS WAR.

He's expanded it, approved the funding, etc.

The lefties here do seem to be gettin desperate.

Better add that shit to HIS column, but they won't. Judging from the collective IQ amassed by the left here, they likely still think GWB is still in office and "planting WMDs in Iraq"

 

[Common Sense]

did Bush ever find any WMD's???? didnt think so....

 

[kiwiman127]

We have been presented a one-sided analysis and with a one-sided analysis usually the entire spectrum is not included.
So here's a link to; Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
Critics Still Wrong on What?s Driving Deficits in Coming Years — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
I'm not going copy & paste the article, we're all grown ups, we can all go to the link and read their opinion.
Now this is from the left leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that deals with amongst things that weren't mentioned in the previous extensive copy & paste posts.
This piece also addresses the Heritage Foundations analysis and points out how Heritage excluded data traditionally used in baseline analysis.
My opinion is that the 111th Congress DID spend like a drunken sailor on steroids. BUT, there is a fact that those who goose-step to talking points will not acknowledge, the Bush future deficits that the 111th Congress had to include in their expenditures to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. An example would be Medicare Part D @ approximately annual cost of$90-100 billion dollars.
Also there are the future costs of previous actions with the war in Iraq and the increasing action in Afghanistan such as the treatment of our troops with physical and mental injuries that will have to treated for years and in some cases decades. The replacement of equipment damaged by combat action or from the wear-and-tear of a sandy environment.
These are just a few of items that will be included in future budgets for years to come and are basically inherited not only by the 111th Congress but also the 112th, 113th and so on.
Obama and the Dems with the 111th Congress have also left future deficits that will be included in future federal budgets for years to come. I certainly don't idolize future presidents or congresses.
In conclusion this thread does not meet the truth test or the very basics of federal fiscal economics 101.

 

[edthecynic]

And for extra good pwny measure, Ima expose CS's sad attempt @ a rebuttal (FROM CBS) as BS:

Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits

Again the dishonest Heritage Foundation phony deficit chart which leaves out Bush's OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING. 2008 alone had $1 TRILLION in OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING!!!!!!!!

The chart is a perfect example of how STUPID and GULLIBLE a person must be to be a CON$ervative. Off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is NOT "deficit spending!"

Welcome to the pwned list, you sad, nit picking troll.http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending

Obviously that is a list of posters who have pwned YOU!

And just to put the cherry on top, Obama"s first fiscal budget, 2010, was LESS than Bush's last fiscal budget.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026151.php

October 15, 2010
DEFICIT SHRINKS FROM LAST YEAR'S RECORD.... Deficit hawks probably won't be pleased with the total, but they should at least be pleased with the direction.

The federal government budget deficit shrank in fiscal 2010, but the big gap was only $122 billion lower than the record high set a year ago.
The U.S. spent $1.294 trillion more than it collected in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Treasury Department said Friday.
The deficit amounted to 8.9% of gross domestic product. That's down from fiscal 2009, when the deficit of $1.416 trillion was 10.0% of GDP.
Spending fell and revenues rose in fiscal 2010 as the economy recovered from the deep recession that contributed to the nation's troubled fiscal condition.
​

If this sounds familiar, it's because the Congressional Budget Office reported on its estimate of the federal budget deficit for FY2010 would just last week. Today's Treasury report is the official deficit tally, though as it turns out, the CBO projection was almost on the nose.


The $1.294 trillion shortfall is smaller than last year's total; it's slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his predecessor; and the final figure was smaller than projections made by the administration and the CBO earlier this year.


Want to have some fun? Ask your favorite Tea Partier whether the deficit they claim to care so much about is higher or lower now than when Obama took office. They won't care for the answer, but it's true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The recent tax bill adds almost a trillion to the debt and the GOP, not to mention the rightwingers here, supported it overwhelmingly.

Yeah, and the excuse the dimwits used it would add to the deficit, but they didn't care about that when they pushed the screw America socialist health care bill through under a bunch of lies. Idiots!!!!

Know what else is great, good for a LOL?

The lefty sheep here are raving bout some "off budget deficit" BS and the cost of the war WHEN OBAMA HAS ALREADY, LONG SINCE, MADE AFGHANISTAN HIS WAR.

He's expanded it, approved the funding, etc.

The lefties here do seem to be gettin desperate.

Better add that shit to HIS column, but they won't. Judging from the collective IQ amassed by the left here, they likely still think GWB is still in office and "planting WMDs in Iraq"

Liberal Democrats generally weren't in favor of escalating the Afghanistan war.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Again the dishonest Heritage Foundation phony deficit chart which leaves out Bush's OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING. 2008 alone had $1 TRILLION in OFF BUDGET DEFICIT SPENDING!!!!!!!!

The chart is a perfect example of how STUPID and GULLIBLE a person must be to be a CON$ervative. Off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is NOT "deficit spending!"

Welcome to the pwned list, you sad, nit picking troll.http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending

Obviously that is a list of posters who have pwned YOU!

And just to put the cherry on top, Obama"s first fiscal budget, 2010, was LESS than Bush's last fiscal budget.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026151.php

October 15, 2010
DEFICIT SHRINKS FROM LAST YEAR'S RECORD.... Deficit hawks probably won't be pleased with the total, but they should at least be pleased with the direction.

The federal government budget deficit shrank in fiscal 2010, but the big gap was only $122 billion lower than the record high set a year ago.
The U.S. spent $1.294 trillion more than it collected in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Treasury Department said Friday.
The deficit amounted to 8.9% of gross domestic product. That's down from fiscal 2009, when the deficit of $1.416 trillion was 10.0% of GDP.
Spending fell and revenues rose in fiscal 2010 as the economy recovered from the deep recession that contributed to the nation's troubled fiscal condition.
​

If this sounds familiar, it's because the Congressional Budget Office reported on its estimate of the federal budget deficit for FY2010 would just last week. Today's Treasury report is the official deficit tally, though as it turns out, the CBO projection was almost on the nose.


The $1.294 trillion shortfall is smaller than last year's total; it's slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his predecessor; and the final figure was smaller than projections made by the administration and the CBO earlier this year.


Want to have some fun? Ask your favorite Tea Partier whether the deficit they claim to care so much about is higher or lower now than when Obama took office. They won't care for the answer, but it's true.

You're still unable to refute the facts I posted, when I quoted you, calling you out.

Try that 1st, you sad, brainwashed lil sheep and MAYBE I'll give your very likely flawed, bias, excuse for a source a gander.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Nobody has addressed these facts yet.....how typical........

Projected Deficit:
In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama's budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade.
Projected Deficit - washingtonpost.com

show me a news source not called the foundry, or fox news or sean hannity that backs this up?

(Newsroom America) -- Though it is being hailed as the most productive legislature in a generation, the 111th Congress was also one of the hardest on the U.S. Treasury, having added more red ink to the nation's debt than the country's first 100 congresses combined, a report said Tuesday.

Cybercast News Service said an analysis of the 111th Congress' fiscal legislation found that lawmakers added more than $3.2 trillion to the nation's debt, or $10,429.64 more per person.

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/88460/report:_111th_congress_added_more_debt_than_first_100_congresses.html

then also show me how the bush years stack up to this congress, then again you also have to add in the wars, which he doesnt do. once again, nice fuzzy math.

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T
By Dick Morris - 02/02/10 06:37 PM ET

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, “You lie,” but we’ll settle for “You distort.”

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies and statistics.”)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T - TheHill.com

A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

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.
Obama's trillions dwarf Bush's 'dangerous' spending | Washington Examiner

 

[Care4all]

Fiscal year 2009 is PRESIDENT BUSH'S, not Obama's....The fiscal year 2009 began Oct1 2008, under President Bush and it is attributed to President Bush's presidency....this includes the 2008 Bail outs added, and the TARP added...

President Bush's 2 terms added nearly $6 trillion to the National Debt, for his 8 years....not 4 trillion but +/- $6 trillion....