111th Congress added more debt than first 100 Congresses COMBINED

[Care4all]

in mid to late 2008 we had TARP, we had Fannie and freddie bailouts and take over, we had AIG bailout, we had goldman sachs bailout, we had the first Auto bailout etc etc etc etc etc.....

You simply can not believe that the minute a person takes office, all that is in the works and happening gets put upon the person that just started....that is simply not the case....

the CBO did an analysis of who is responsible for the ongoing deficit/debt added and it has stated that Obama's legislation and actions is about 10% of the running problem, and president Bush, and Bush 1 and Reagan etc etc actions taken accounts for the rest.... laws and legislation affecting the defict is an accumilated thing...like the Republicans adding the medicare pill bill costing hundreds of billions was legislated but NOT PAID FOR.....this defict continues until the law is changed to eliminate it or they find a way to pay for it with additional taxes or cuts....the interest payment that we are now paying on the 12 trillion national debt is an inherited bill, not one that is obama';s fault....this is the debt that was created before his presidency that we have to pay the 300 billion on each year....

the budget is not done in a vacuum and ends year after year, the cost of what is or has been legislated continues....

 

[edthecynic]

Time to pwn another brainwashed, flaming, National Socialist wacko lib troll.

Attention edthecynic. You continue to embarrass yourself to nit picking my posts, YOU HAVE YET TO ATTEMPT TO TRY to refute the other 90% Perhaps cuz you know you can't.


The whole forum is @ you right now troll. Last chance for your lil waste of bandwith self to post something of remote credibility, or else make your home on my pwned belt.

Every one of your DISHONEST CON$ervative sources uses the same phony numbers and the same 7 year Bush presidency!!!! CON$ always lie in packs!!!!! Count the number of Bush fiscal budgets in the above chart you were STUPID enough to post.

Again you prove you are tooooooo STUPID to know you've been pwned by your OWN posts and your OWN sources!!!

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Care4all wrote:

You simply can not believe that the minute a person takes office, all that is in the works and happening gets put upon the person that just started....that is simply not the case....

Again, I'm telling you my article puts the bailouts, TARP, etc. ON BUSH.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

NOTICE THE SOURCE IS THE CBO, NOT HERITAGE. THEY ONLY POSTED IT. Wanna call that "bias" too?

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Obama Raises 2010 Deficit Estimate to $1.5 Trillion (Update3) - Bloomberg

FROM ABC:

By DAVID MUIR
Feb. 1, 2010

President Obama announced a $3.83 trilion budget today that he hopes will fight unemployment while freezing spending on some government programs. It's a huge price tag, and it's worsening an enormous, record-setting budget deficit -- $1.6 trillion.

Many people are now asking how we got here. Especially when it was not long ago that we had a surplus. Here's a breakdown of the recent history:

In 2000, when President Clinton left office, the U.S. was in the black by $236 billion. At the time, number crunchers projected a surplus for at least 10 years.

But just two years later, we were in the red by $158 billion. The aftermath of 9/11 effectively froze the nation's economy. And President Bush enacted his first round of tax cuts.

By 2004, the deficit had more than doubled, to nearly $413 billion. The U.S. had invaded Iraq, and, economists point out, there was another round of tax cuts.

By the end of 2008, the banking system was near collapse. Bush signed a $700 billion bank bailout package, and the deficit grew to $438 billion.

Then Obama took office and soon enacted the $787 billion economic recovery plan. That brings us to $1.4 trillion in debt...and still counting.

Obama Budget: History of the Federal Budget Deficit - ABC News

From CBS:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2010
Obama Budget Projects $1.56T Deficit

The result is a budget plan that would give the country trillion-dollar-plus deficits for three consecutive years. Obama's new budget projects a spending increase of 5.7 percent for the current budget year and forecasts that spending would rise another 3 percent in 2011 to $3.83 trillion.

Obama Budget Projects $1.56T Deficit - CBS News

The Budget
The Next Bubble: Obama's Budget Deficit
Joshua Zumbrun, 03.20.09, 06:00 PM EDT

The U.S. could be in the hole $2.3 trillion more than expected--and that's if the economy performs well.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--As President Obama prepares to send his budget to Congress next week, he's run into a bit of a stumbling block. The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that the national debt under the president's budget will be $2.3 trillion deeper than the White House estimates.

Now for the real bad news: Both estimates are optimistic. If the economy continues to deteriorate faster than economists project, those numbers will balloon further.

Over the next decade, the CBO projects that the White House budget will run $9.3 trillion in deficits. The White House projection had been $7 trillion.

The Next Bubble: Obama's Budget Deficit - Forbes.com

Obama's budget deficit heading further up

The federal budget deficit is projected to remain above $1.4 trillion through next year as a result of the current recession, the White House announced this afternoon.

The accumulated national debt goes up no matter what. It's currently $13.2 trillion and projected to top $15 trillion by the end of 2011 and $25 trillion by the end of 2020.

Obama's budget deficit heading further up - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I got links for days, you complain bout "objectivity"? How bout them lefty sites like ABC, AND CBS?

It's unfucking deniable.

"Common Sense" already admitted I was right bout the deficit. I'm also proving I'm right bout the debt.

Of course predictable, lil brainwashed sheep like edthecynic will lie, distort, and try to troll their way to a rebuttal, and they will continue to FAIL.

Next.......

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Time to pwn another brainwashed, flaming, National Socialist wacko lib troll.

Attention edthecynic. You continue to embarrass yourself to nit picking my posts, YOU HAVE YET TO ATTEMPT TO TRY to refute the other 90% Perhaps cuz you know you can't.


The whole forum is @ you right now troll. Last chance for your lil waste of bandwith self to post something of remote credibility, or else make your home on my pwned belt.

Every one of your DISHONEST CON$ervative sources uses the same phony numbers and the same 7 year Bush presidency!!!! CON$ always lie in packs!!!!! Count the number of Bush fiscal budgets in the above chart you were STUPID enough to post.

Again you prove you are tooooooo STUPID to know you've been pwned by your OWN posts and your OWN sources!!!

^^^^^^^

That's why I added the other links and articles you moron. Why I made sure to include what those left out IE TARP AND THE BAILOUTS.


You STILL have yet to refute ANY of the links I posted, sheep. Still gonna try to nit pick? Or are you done humiliating yourself now?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Any other wacko, commie troll flamers like edthecynic wanna get mega pwned?

Is this desperate nit pickin seriously the best yall can do?

ME 3>edthecynic0

Yall are gonna need a better rep...preferably one with rep points.

 

[edthecynic]

NOTICE THE SOURCE IS THE CBO, NOT HERITAGE. Wanna call that "bias" too?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/07/obama-budget-deficit-taxes/1

Hey DOOFUS! It says Heritage.org right in the lower right hand corner.

Again, the Bush numbers used accounting gimmicks to keep the bulk of Bush's DEFICIT SPENDING off budget. Obama eliminated the dishonest Bush gimmicks. Every Bush deficit was over $500 BILLION. His total deficit for EIGHT (8) years was $ 6 TRILLION, $2.5 trillion on budget and $3.5 trillion off budget. Bush spent more off budget than on!!!!!!!!! So your dishonest charts compare dishonest Bush bookkeeping to Obama's HONEST books!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.
But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.


Recent presidents and Congresses were complicit in the ploy involving the alternative minimum tax. While that tax was intended to hit the wealthiest taxpayers, it was not indexed for inflation. That fact and the tax breaks of the Bush years have meant that it could affect millions of middle-class taxpayers.
If they paid it, the government would get billions of dollars more in tax revenues, which is what past budgets have projected. But it would also probably mean a taxpayer revolt. So each year the White House and Congress agree to “patch” the alternative tax for inflation, and the extra revenues never materialize.

 

[edthecynic]

Time to pwn another brainwashed, flaming, National Socialist wacko lib troll.

Attention edthecynic. You continue to embarrass yourself to nit picking my posts, YOU HAVE YET TO ATTEMPT TO TRY to refute the other 90% Perhaps cuz you know you can't.


The whole forum is @ you right now troll. Last chance for your lil waste of bandwith self to post something of remote credibility, or else make your home on my pwned belt.

Every one of your DISHONEST CON$ervative sources uses the same phony numbers and the same 7 year Bush presidency!!!! CON$ always lie in packs!!!!! Count the number of Bush fiscal budgets in the above chart you were STUPID enough to post.

Again you prove you are tooooooo STUPID to know you've been pwned by your OWN posts and your OWN sources!!!

^^^^^^^

That's why I added the other links and articles you moron. Why I made sure to include what those left out IE TARP AND THE BAILOUTS.


You STILL have yet to refute ANY of the links I posted, sheep. Still gonna try to nit pick? Or are you done humiliating yourself now?

Dang you are STUPID. There was a lot more than TARP and the bailouts OFF BUDGET!!!!! Bush used 4, count them FOUR, accounting gimmicks to create his phony budget deficits. These were pointed out to you earlier in this thread and you simply ignore them and post the same 7 year budget lies over and over. No matter how many times you post Bush budgets that use the gimmicks and compare them to Obama's budget that doesn't use the gimmicks you expose your complete dishonesty!!!

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

edthecynic wrote:

Hey DOOFUS! It says Heritage.org right in the lower right hand corner.

THE SOURCE SAYS CBO, YOU ILLITERATE, BRAINWASHED MORON. HERITAGE ONLY POSTED IT. STILL NIT PICKIN? Of course you are, you know you're beat, and now you're just flat out LYING.

Again, the Bush numbers used accounting gimmicks to keep the bulk of Bush's DEFICIT SPENDING off budget. Obama eliminated the dishonest Bush gimmicks. Every Bush deficit was over $500 BILLION. His total deficit for EIGHT (8) years was $ 6 TRILLION, $2.5 trillion on budget and $3.5 trillion off budget. Bush spent more off budget than on!!!!!!!!! So your dishonest charts compare dishonest Bush bookkeeping to Obama's HONEST books!!!

LOL EVEN THE LEFTY I SITES I CITED SHIT ON YOUR ASININE CLAIM FROM THE LYING, BIAS, LEFTY NYT. Damn dude no wonder you have so few rep points and NO FRIENDS HERE.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.
But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

NEWSFLASH MORON: THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE IS THE BIBLE WHEN IT COMES TO DEFICITS AND DEBT, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN THE FAR LEFT NYT. YOUR LINK EVEN SAYS "DEFICITS WILL RISE" THANKS FOR PWNING YOURSELF.

Is this it? This seriously the BEST you can do?

It's over Obamabot, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T REFUTE THESE ARTICLES, LINKS, HELL YOU COULDN'T EVEN REFUTE MY LAST SET.

I'M PWNING YOUR SHEEP ASS WITH LEFTY SITES NOW. This is how bad you're FAILING.

Give it up troll.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Every one of your DISHONEST CON$ervative sources uses the same phony numbers and the same 7 year Bush presidency!!!! CON$ always lie in packs!!!!! Count the number of Bush fiscal budgets in the above chart you were STUPID enough to post.

Again you prove you are tooooooo STUPID to know you've been pwned by your OWN posts and your OWN sources!!!

^^^^^^^

That's why I added the other links and articles you moron. Why I made sure to include what those left out IE TARP AND THE BAILOUTS.


You STILL have yet to refute ANY of the links I posted, sheep. Still gonna try to nit pick? Or are you done humiliating yourself now?

Dang you are STUPID. There was a lot more than TARP and the bailouts OFF BUDGET!!!!! Bush used 4, count them FOUR, accounting gimmicks to create his phony budget deficits. These were pointed out to you earlier in this thread and you simply ignore them and post the same 7 year budget lies over and over. No matter how many times you post Bush budgets that use the gimmicks and compare them to Obama's budget that doesn't use the gimmicks you expose your complete dishonesty!!!

I gotta double pwn you now? Damn.....

The theories from your insanely bias, flawed, lying, NYT are pwned BY MY OFFICIAL FIGURES FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

It's over sheep. You're clearly melting down. You can't refute SHIT, just post asinine claims from JOKE SOURCES.

 

[Care4all]

[edit] Deficit

With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. Actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion - significantly less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

^^^^^^^

That's why I added the other links and articles you moron. Why I made sure to include what those left out IE TARP AND THE BAILOUTS.


You STILL have yet to refute ANY of the links I posted, sheep. Still gonna try to nit pick? Or are you done humiliating yourself now?

Dang you are STUPID. There was a lot more than TARP and the bailouts OFF BUDGET!!!!! Bush used 4, count them FOUR, accounting gimmicks to create his phony budget deficits. These were pointed out to you earlier in this thread and you simply ignore them and post the same 7 year budget lies over and over. No matter how many times you post Bush budgets that use the gimmicks and compare them to Obama's budget that doesn't use the gimmicks you expose your complete dishonesty!!!

I gotta double pwn you now? Damn.....

The theories from your insanely bias, flawed, lying, NYT are pwned BY MY OFFICIAL FIGURES FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

It's over sheep. You're clearly melting down. You can't refute SHIT, just post asinine claims from JOKE SOURCES.

The CBO numbers for Bush use the 4 gimmicks, and you know it. Play dumb all you want, but you fool no one but yourself.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Oh no.......am I doin it? Yes I am, IMA PWN edthecynic USING HIS PRECIOUS NYT:


Economic View
What’s Sustainable About This Budget?

By N. GREGORY MANKIW
Published: February 13, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 budget, released this month, bears the title “A New Era of Responsibility.”
David G. Klein

“Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt,” the president said in his State of the Union address. “Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here.”

Noble aspirations, indeed. But do the numbers inside the document support the rhetoric surrounding it?

It may be tempting to assume that a balanced budget is the natural benchmark. Certainly, the Obama budget comes nowhere close to achieving that goal. But there are reasons to think that this standard is far too strict.

Recent history illustrates this principle. From 2005 to 2007, before the recession and financial crisis, the federal government ran budget deficits, but they averaged less than 2 percent of gross domestic product. Because this borrowing was moderate in magnitude and the economy was growing at about its normal rate, the federal debt held by the public fell from 36.8 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 2004 fiscal year to 36.2 percent three years later.

That is, despite substantial wartime spending during this period, budget deficits were small enough to keep the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio under control.

The troubling feature of Mr. Obama’s budget is that it fails to return the federal government to manageable budget deficits, even as the wars wind down and the economy recovers from the recession. According to the administration’s own numbers, the budget deficit under the president’s proposed policies will never fall below 3.6 percent of G.D.P. By 2020, the end of the planning horizon, it will be 4.2 percent and rising.

As a result, the government’s debts will grow faster than the economy. The administration projects that the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio will rise in each of the next 10 years. By 2020, the government’s debts will equal 77.2 percent of G.D.P. This level of indebtedness has not been seen since 1950, in the aftermath of the borrowing to finance World War II.

Making matters worse, these bleak budget projections are based on relatively optimistic economic assumptions. The administration forecasts economic growth of 3.0 percent from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the fourth quarter of 2010, followed by 4.3 percent the next year. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office predicts growth of 2.1 percent and 2.4 percent for these two years. Lower growth would mean less tax revenue, larger budget deficits and a more rapidly increasing debt-to-G.D.P. ratio.

The president seems to understand that the fiscal plan presented in his budget is not sustainable and, as such, is not really a plan at all. That is why the budget prominently calls for a fiscal commission that will be charged with “identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation.” The goal, the budget says, is “to stabilize the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio at an acceptable level once the economy recovers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/economy/14view.html

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Annnnd THAT'S what I call some megapwnage people.

Ima bounce now, gettin tired. I'll leave edthecynic to continue to lie, distort, and slander his way into a continuing troll fit as there's really no way he can come back from this humiliation.

It's obvious he's yet another, sad, brainwashed Obamabot, with asinine claims from joke sources.

Worst part is, I just finished em off with his most precious source.

Now sheep, when you see your stupid name on my pwned belt, you'll know, and never forget why. Save some face, run, and go learn how to actually debate somewhere. Take the advice.........

Case. Set. Match.

 

[edthecynic]

edthecynic wrote:

Hey DOOFUS! It says Heritage.org right in the lower right hand corner.

THE SOURCE SAYS CBO, YOU ILLITERATE, BRAINWASHED MORON. HERITAGE ONLY POSTED IT. STILL NIT PICKIN? Of course you are, you know you're beat, and now you're just flat out LYING.

Well then, you should have no trouble linking to CBO directly to get the chart!!!!!

Again you show your complete ignorance of how your OWN CON$ervative sources lie to you. It was Heritage who took CBO numbers that used Bush's 4 gimmicks and DISHONESTLY combined them in a chart with Obama's that don't use the same gimmicks. You will not find that chart anywhere on the CBO web site!!!!!

And that is exactly why you are a typical CON$ervative, you are tooooooo STUPID to know when you've been lied to even after it's been shown to you!

 

[edthecynic]

Oh no.......am I doin it? Yes I am, IMA PWN edthecynic USING HIS PRECIOUS NYT:


Economic View
What’s Sustainable About This Budget?

By N. GREGORY MANKIW
Published: February 13, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 budget, released this month, bears the title “A New Era of Responsibility.”
David G. Klein

“Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt,” the president said in his State of the Union address. “Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here.”

Noble aspirations, indeed. But do the numbers inside the document support the rhetoric surrounding it?

It may be tempting to assume that a balanced budget is the natural benchmark. Certainly, the Obama budget comes nowhere close to achieving that goal. But there are reasons to think that this standard is far too strict.

Recent history illustrates this principle. From 2005 to 2007, before the recession and financial crisis, the federal government ran budget deficits, but they averaged less than 2 percent of gross domestic product. Because this borrowing was moderate in magnitude and the economy was growing at about its normal rate, the federal debt held by the public fell from 36.8 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 2004 fiscal year to 36.2 percent three years later.

That is, despite substantial wartime spending during this period, budget deficits were small enough to keep the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio under control.

The NY Times has many CON$ervative writers and all CON$ cook their stats because thay know fools like you are tooooooo STUPID to catch them. That is why no honest person ever trusts any stat from a CON$ervative source.

I highlighted in red very obvious cooking of the stats that you completely missed.

First of all the writer is using debt numbers that use Bush's 4 gimmicks making his deficits look smaller. Second he is not including ALL debt only "PUBLIC DEBT." TOTAL debt is the public debt PLUS the inter-governmental DEBT, which is money borrowed from the SS surplus, etc. I especially like how the liar brings up "substantial wartime spending" when he knows that spending was not included in the debt figures, and YOU swallowed it whole!!!

So rather than the debt to GDP falling from 36.8% in 2004 to 36.2% the TOTAL debt ratio ROSE from 62.18% in 2004 to 63.99% in 2007.

Total debt to GDP was 56.46% in Clinton's last budget and 83.29% with Bush's last budget!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

^^^^^^^

That's why I added the other links and articles you moron. Why I made sure to include what those left out IE TARP AND THE BAILOUTS.


You STILL have yet to refute ANY of the links I posted, sheep. Still gonna try to nit pick? Or are you done humiliating yourself now?

Dang you are STUPID. There was a lot more than TARP and the bailouts OFF BUDGET!!!!! Bush used 4, count them FOUR, accounting gimmicks to create his phony budget deficits. These were pointed out to you earlier in this thread and you simply ignore them and post the same 7 year budget lies over and over. No matter how many times you post Bush budgets that use the gimmicks and compare them to Obama's budget that doesn't use the gimmicks you expose your complete dishonesty!!!

I gotta double pwn you now? Damn.....

The theories from your insanely bias, flawed, lying, NYT are pwned BY MY OFFICIAL FIGURES FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

It's over sheep. You're clearly melting down. You can't refute SHIT, just post asinine claims from JOKE SOURCES.

Listen. Please.

1) Your source for this information did not adjust the historical numbers for inflation, so the comparison is meaningless. Period.

2) Debt is created when revenues are lower than spending. That means, now pay attention, please, that if tax revenues fall, which normally occurs in a recession, that contributes to the debt. Now look at this chart:

See what happens in 2009 and 2010? The 2 years of the 111th Congress? Revenues are down from 2008 both years. That loss of revenue contributed to the deficits of those 2 years, but, and this is important so please pay attention,

that revenue loss was not caused by the 111th Congress's spending.

See? So, in short, the claims of the source you cited are simply inaccurate.

You shouldn't try to make points based on inaccurate data, or premises, or assumptions. That makes for a bad argument, and that's why you will inevitably get shot down, refuted, and, most likely, mocked in the process.

It's not fun to be wrong, but it is avoidable, if you're willing to work a little at it.

 

[editec]

Take a gooood gander there lefties. While I'm sure this type of fiscal suicide pleases yall in the name of some type of "equality", I would still like to see yall explain away this insanity, or still, somehow claim that this treasonous, socialist, epic fail is ANYTHING other than THAT.


(CNSNews.com) - 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.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S. | CNSnews.com

So you must just HATE the Republican/Democratic compromise, right?

You know the one that will be forcing the government to borrow another $800 billion dollars?

 

[Ropey]

Obama is attempting to reverse the method of castrating the other party, called "Starving the Beast" which is usually the method of the Republicans. It's been turned on them and they do not like it as this means that when they get into office, there's not much money around for what the Dems call aggressive war.

I will be interested to see how the Republicans extricate themselves from this 'choking off' when next in power.

Interesting times ahead.

Starve the beast

Starving the beast can get pretty interesting.