The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56

[Synthaholic]

Congress handles the credit cards. Wanna see the stats on this since the '06 election?

Then why are you talking about Obama

Because he agrees with every DIME of deficit blown during the Pelosian era.

And how much of that $5 Trillion does that account for?

Be honest, now!

 

[SniperFire]

Then why are you talking about Obama

Because he agrees with every DIME of deficit blown during the Pelosian era.

And how much of that $5 Trillion does that account for?

Every dime, of course.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama added the cost of the two wars that Bush started, for one thing. Wonder why Bush didn't have those in the budget?

The debt always included the wars.

False. They were off-budget.

How were they paid for, with magic beans?

 

[Synthaholic]

Because he agrees with every DIME of deficit blown during the Pelosian era.

And how much of that $5 Trillion does that account for?

Every dime, of course.

False. There has not been $5 trillion in new spending since Obama took office.

 

[SniperFire]

Obama added the cost of the two wars that Bush started, for one thing. Wonder why Bush didn't have those in the budget?

The debt always included the wars.

False. They were off-budget.

You aren't very bright. Some war spending was off-budget, but that affects the budget DEFICIT, not the debt.

Educate yourself on the difference between debt and deficit, then come back and join us in conversation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The debt always included the wars.

False. They were off-budget.

You aren't very bright. Some war spending was off-budget, but that affects the budget DEFICIT, not the debt.

Educate yourself on the difference between debt and deficit, then come back and join us in conversation.

That's how they're able to blow annual trillion holes in the budget; they're completely ignorant

 

[Synthaholic]

The debt always included the wars.

False. They were off-budget.

How were they paid for, with magic beans?

Supplemental funding bills, approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, and borrowed from China.

Don't you know anything?


How US is deferring war costs


To pay for World War II, Americans bought savings bonds and put extra notches in their belts. President Harry Truman raised taxes and cut nonmilitary spending to pay for the Korean conflict. During Vietnam, the US raised taxes but still watched deficits soar.

But to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has used its credit card, counting on the Chinese and other foreign buyers of its debt to pay the bills.

Now, as President Bush is promising to boost the number of troops in Iraq, there is increased scrutiny over how the US is going to pay for it all.

The US is spending about $10 billion a month on Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, the total funds appropriated will be nearly $600 billion – approaching the amount spent on the Vietnam or Korean wars, when adjusted for inflation.

However, the actual impact of the war on the economy is different than in the past, largely because the US economy is so much bigger now. During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP.

Payment due: in the future
The US can certainly afford the war, says budget analyst Stan Collender, a managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington. But the spending is taking resources from other areas, he notes. Because the US is borrowing to finance the war, the cost will be borne by future generations. "And it's still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought," he says.

Unlike in previous major wars, the United States has cut taxes at the same time it has increased military spending. "It's fair to say all of the money spent on the war has been borrowed," says Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank in Washington. "But eventually everything has to be paid for."

Congressional questioning
Congress hopes to hold hearings on the financial implications of the war before the president releases his budget proposal for fiscal year 2008 on Feb. 5. Democrats, now in the majority, plan to ask a wide range of questions, from the future costs of the war to how those costs should be budgeted.

"We won't balance the budget in one year. The best we can expect is five years," says Rep. John Spratt (D) of South Carolina, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, in a phone interview. "But we need to know: What is the bar we need to reach?"

Estimating the budget deficit has become more difficult in recent years because the White House has funded much of the war through emergency supplemental bills, which are not included in the federal budget. According to a Congressional Research Service report, it is a practice that other administrations have employed since the Korean War. This year, the White House is expected to ask for another $100 billion in supplemental war funds, but Representative Spratt says he would like to get the war back on the budget since it can be argued the war is no longer an emergency.

 

[SniperFire]

False. They were off-budget.

You aren't very bright. Some war spending was off-budget, but that affects the budget DEFICIT, not the debt.

Educate yourself on the difference between debt and deficit, then come back and join us in conversation.

That's how they're able to blow annual trillion holes in the budget; they're completely ignorant

This dude is obviously a Pelosian.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama added the cost of the two wars that Bush started, for one thing. Wonder why Bush didn't have those in the budget?

The debt always included the wars.

False. They were off-budget.

Budget, smudget.
They're still included in the debt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How much of that increase in debt was from spending signed by Obama?

All of it. He chose to spend every penny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We interrupt the Lefty diversion from real issues to announce the latest high watermark in the historic Obama Presidency:

CNSNews.com)- In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.

Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.'

The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 | CNSNews.com



Congrats, I guess.

He claimed he would cut the deficit in half but he increased it by 90% - oh and mind you 90% in less than 4 years.

Then the idiots deny Cloward-Piven...

Actually no. Bushes last budget had a deficit of 1.5 trillion while Obama's deficit in 2011 was 1.4 trillions

GWBs last budget was FY2008. $458.6B
The Obama signed FY2009. $1413.6B

 

[M14 Shooter]

We interrupt the Lefty diversion from real issues to announce the latest high watermark in the historic Obama Presidency:

CNSNews.com)- In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.

Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.'

The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 | CNSNews.com




Congrats, I guess.

The last guy ran up the credit card.

If you weren't a complete imbecile you would know that.

The current guy has run up more on that crefit card in less than half the time.
Anyone who criticizes Bush for the debt accumulated while he was in office and isnt a partisan bigot will criticize The Obama that much more so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obama added the cost of the two wars that Bush started, for one thing. Wonder why Bush didn't have those in the budget?

The debt always included the wars.

Always.
There are far too many idiots that do not know what "off budget" means.

 

[hortysir]

Because he agrees with every DIME of deficit blown during the Pelosian era.

And how much of that $5 Trillion does that account for?

Every dime, of course.

Plus the "surplus"

 

[M14 Shooter]

And how much of that $5 Trillion does that account for?

Every dime, of course.

Plus the "surplus"

Not catching your drift.

 

[Synthaholic]

We interrupt the Lefty diversion from real issues to announce the latest high watermark in the historic Obama Presidency:

CNSNews.com)- In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.

Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.'

The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56 | CNSNews.com




Congrats, I guess.

The last guy ran up the credit card.

If you weren't a complete imbecile you would know that.

The current guy has run up more on that crefit card in less than half the time.
Anyone who criticizes Bush for the debt accumulated while he was in office and isnt a partisan bigot will criticize The Obama that much more so.

That is false.

 

[auditor0007]

And the facts tell us that had it not been for the Bush tax cuts, we wouldn't have such a large deficit.

1: This is only true if you can show that the tax cuts did not increase growth, and thus, revenue. It is entirely possible that, absent these cuts, revenue would have been even lower.
2: You will recall that The Obama forced the Dems to extend the Bush-eta "tax cuts for the rich" in 2010 and so any FY2011/2012 (and later, if they are extended again) shortfall in revenue due to these tax cuts are directly attributable to the Obama, not GWB.

I won't deny #2; however, I do not believe the Bush tax cuts did much to stimulate the economy. The growth we were seeing was almost entirely due to the housing bubble. People were spending money like drunken sailors because their housing values continued to climb and climb and climb. If the Bush tax cuts had been directly responsible, we should have seen much greater growth than we did. That is just my opinion. Obviously, proving it or proving anything against it is pretty much impossible.

 

[hortysir]

The last guy ran up the credit card.

If you weren't a complete imbecile you would know that.

The current guy has run up more on that crefit card in less than half the time.
Anyone who criticizes Bush for the debt accumulated while he was in office and isnt a partisan bigot will criticize The Obama that much more so.

That is false.

because you say so.

 

[starcraftzzz]

He claimed he would cut the deficit in half but he increased it by 90% - oh and mind you 90% in less than 4 years.

Then the idiots deny Cloward-Piven...

Actually no. Bushes last budget had a deficit of 1.5 trillion while Obama's deficit in 2011 was 1.4 trillions

GWBs last budget was FY2008. $458.6B
The Obama signed FY2009. $1413.6B

ROTFL are you really so stupid that you do not know about fiscal years?
GWB signed and passed the 2008 fiscal year budget in actual date wise started in 2009.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

GWBs last budget was FY2008. $458.6B
The Obama signed FY2009. $1413.6B

The budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 – September 2009. The budget proposed predicted a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to the national 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.