Obama debt hole deeper than George W. Bush's in less than half the time.
R
redgreen5
Guest
LOL
From the FOX piece:
"From the time Bush took office in January 2001 to his departure on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt increased $4.9 trillion -- from $5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. The debt now stands at $15.57 trillion, up $4.94 trillion since Obama took office less than four years ago."
A more honest way of looking at this would be to look at the % increase. Using the figures in the FOX piece:
Bush start: $5.73T
Bush end: $10.63T
Incr: $4.9T
% Incr: 85% increase in the debt.
Obama start: $10.63T
Obama now: $15.57T
Incr $4.94T
% incr 46% increase in the debt.
So from just the sketchy data in this FOX piece, Obama and Bush are about equal in their % contribution to the debt. The only difference is the 4 years vs. 8 years timeframe.
Of course, what FOX won't tell its readers - because they're too biased, and the readers aren't inquisitive enough to self-educate - is that the federal fiscal budget doesn't follow the calendar of the presidential years. It never has.
The federal fiscal year ends on Sept 30th each year. The first day of the federal fiscal new year is therefore Oct 1st. In the autumn of each year - and hopefully before the govt runs out of money - Congress passes the budget that allows the govt to keep running for the following year. So far, so good.
And at the end of each fiscal year, the CBO and Treasury tally the income vs. outflow figures and report them to everyone. If there is a deficit that is unpaid for any given year, then it gets added to the ongoing tally of the federal debt. Deficit is an annual event, while debt is an ongoing, rolling tally.
What does this mean?
It means that the all the debt listed until 9/30/2009 represents the spending decisions contained in the last budget passed while George Bush was still president in 2008. Consequently the debt figure assigned to 9/30/2009 belongs to Bush, not Obama. (And to be fair, the first year of debt under Bush actually belonged to Clinton, since Bush had no signature authority over Clinton's last budget. So the first year of the Bush administration he was operating under the last budget passed by Clinton).
Therefore, the growth of the debt under Bush - measured from 2001 to 2009, since Bush's 1st budget, was actually $6,102,365,591,311 - or about $6.1 trillion, not $4.9T as FOX erroneously claimed.
When viewed in that light, George Bush's contribution to the debt - during the timeframe that he actually had signature authority over -
Starting debt $5,806,151,389,190.21
Ending debt $11,920,519,164,319.42
Difference: $6,114,367,775,129.19
% difference: 105% increase in the debt
And of course, this doesn't count the fact that the Bush errors in fiscal and financial policy actually have ongoing effects into 2010, 2011 and beyond. The deficit spending in 2010 and 2011 wouldn't have been necessary if Bush & Co. hadn't trashed the economy in the preceding years.
And finally, Bush was heavy into accounting gimmicks to try and hide the cost of his two Mideast wars from Congress and the public. Once you remove those sleazy gimmicks, the Bush contribution to the debt jumps up by almost $3 trillion more. Bush's total contribution is closer to $9 trillion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
WASHINGTON
From the FOX piece:
"From the time Bush took office in January 2001 to his departure on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt increased $4.9 trillion -- from $5.73 trillion to $10.63 trillion. The debt now stands at $15.57 trillion, up $4.94 trillion since Obama took office less than four years ago."
A more honest way of looking at this would be to look at the % increase. Using the figures in the FOX piece:
Bush start: $5.73T
Bush end: $10.63T
Incr: $4.9T
% Incr: 85% increase in the debt.
Obama start: $10.63T
Obama now: $15.57T
Incr $4.94T
% incr 46% increase in the debt.
So from just the sketchy data in this FOX piece, Obama and Bush are about equal in their % contribution to the debt. The only difference is the 4 years vs. 8 years timeframe.
Of course, what FOX won't tell its readers - because they're too biased, and the readers aren't inquisitive enough to self-educate - is that the federal fiscal budget doesn't follow the calendar of the presidential years. It never has.
The federal fiscal year ends on Sept 30th each year. The first day of the federal fiscal new year is therefore Oct 1st. In the autumn of each year - and hopefully before the govt runs out of money - Congress passes the budget that allows the govt to keep running for the following year. So far, so good.
And at the end of each fiscal year, the CBO and Treasury tally the income vs. outflow figures and report them to everyone. If there is a deficit that is unpaid for any given year, then it gets added to the ongoing tally of the federal debt. Deficit is an annual event, while debt is an ongoing, rolling tally.
What does this mean?
It means that the all the debt listed until 9/30/2009 represents the spending decisions contained in the last budget passed while George Bush was still president in 2008. Consequently the debt figure assigned to 9/30/2009 belongs to Bush, not Obama. (And to be fair, the first year of debt under Bush actually belonged to Clinton, since Bush had no signature authority over Clinton's last budget. So the first year of the Bush administration he was operating under the last budget passed by Clinton).
Therefore, the growth of the debt under Bush - measured from 2001 to 2009, since Bush's 1st budget, was actually $6,102,365,591,311 - or about $6.1 trillion, not $4.9T as FOX erroneously claimed.
When viewed in that light, George Bush's contribution to the debt - during the timeframe that he actually had signature authority over -
Starting debt $5,806,151,389,190.21
Ending debt $11,920,519,164,319.42
Difference: $6,114,367,775,129.19
% difference: 105% increase in the debt
And of course, this doesn't count the fact that the Bush errors in fiscal and financial policy actually have ongoing effects into 2010, 2011 and beyond. The deficit spending in 2010 and 2011 wouldn't have been necessary if Bush & Co. hadn't trashed the economy in the preceding years.
And finally, Bush was heavy into accounting gimmicks to try and hide the cost of his two Mideast wars from Congress and the public. Once you remove those sleazy gimmicks, the Bush contribution to the debt jumps up by almost $3 trillion more. Bush's total contribution is closer to $9 trillion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html
WASHINGTON
Ah, yes....it's Bush's fault.....
R
redgreen5
Guest
qwerty said:
Mostly, yes. Bush & the GOP-controlled Congress. Alan Greenspan shares a chunk of the blame, too.
But the current debt mess is traceable to primarily Bush/GOP fiscal and policy decisions.
Of course, feel free to get off your lazy backside, grab your Walmart calculator, and do the math yourself if you doubt it.
I won't hold my breath, though.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=rsc2a]
GOP-controlled Congress.
Wait....what?
[/quote]
Congress during the Bush years was almost totally GOP-controlled, especially during the timeframe when the spending and policy decisions that would most impact the debt and deficit were being made. Democrats didn't regain power till the 2006 offyear elections.
Was that the point of my comment you were asking about?
Or was it something else?
GOP-controlled Congress.
Wait....what?
[/quote]
Congress during the Bush years was almost totally GOP-controlled, especially during the timeframe when the spending and policy decisions that would most impact the debt and deficit were being made. Democrats didn't regain power till the 2006 offyear elections.
Was that the point of my comment you were asking about?
Or was it something else?
redgreen5 said:
Can I use the same bad math where there is a bigger deficit over the same time period but since the debt is bigger overall, it is actually less percentage so it is less?
That is basic liberal logic.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=qwerty]Can I use the same bad math [/quote]
It's not bad math. It's just *inconvenient* math.
For you, that is.
Besides, when I tried to use absolute numbers in the earlier discussion, one of your fellow wingnutters told me to use % of GDP as the metric instead.
So apparently conservoclowns are all in favor of expressing results by percentage -- unless that doesn't give them the outcome that they're looking for, in which case they change their tune.
Is that Walmart calculator one of those hand-cranked jobs?
In terms of absolute numbers, Bush still created more debt than Obama. That point was made clear as well. You simply chose to overlook it.
It's not bad math. It's just *inconvenient* math.
For you, that is.
Besides, when I tried to use absolute numbers in the earlier discussion, one of your fellow wingnutters told me to use % of GDP as the metric instead.
So apparently conservoclowns are all in favor of expressing results by percentage -- unless that doesn't give them the outcome that they're looking for, in which case they change their tune.
Is that Walmart calculator one of those hand-cranked jobs?
In terms of absolute numbers, Bush still created more debt than Obama. That point was made clear as well. You simply chose to overlook it.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
redgreen5 said:
Congress during the Bush years was almost totally GOP-controlled, especially during the timeframe when the spending and policy decisions that would most impact the debt and deficit were being made. Democrats didn't regain power till the 2006 offyear elections.
Was that the point of my comment you were asking about?
Or was it something else?
[/quote]
Yeah...see you have a problem with what the data actually shows then...
T
Top
Guest
T
Top
Guest
The guy is a bonehead.
He must of failed common sense 101.
Next reply, he'll tell us Obummer is making us all rich if we keep on raising the debt limit.
Must be that redgreen kool-aid he drinks.
He must of failed common sense 101.
Next reply, he'll tell us Obummer is making us all rich if we keep on raising the debt limit.
Must be that redgreen kool-aid he drinks.
Top said:
The only reason that Obama had to pass more regulation is because of Bush's failure to pass regulations!
R
redgreen5
Guest
rsc2a said:
Yeah...see you have a problem with what the data actually shows then...
[/quote]
1. I already gave you the raw numbers. I'm not sure why you think the graph is any different from them. It is not (with the exception that it doesn't properly track Bush's off-the-books accounting for the war, which would boost his debt contribution by $2.7 trillion).
2. Apparently you can't read data or a graph. The high peak in your graph between 2008 and 2010? Guess what: that's 2009. All the debt accumulated prior to 2009 was done on Bush's watch. That's where the high-water mark is, for debt under the Bush administration.
3. This graph is also misleading; the debt piling up now was caused by policy decisions and spending priorities in the first decade, 2001-2010. It may come as a surprise to you, but decisions in the past really, truly do have impacts on future debt levels. There isn't a giant eraser that wipes the chalkboard clean, just because we changed presidents. The Bush tax cuts, the Bush Mideast wars, etc. all have impacts that continue long after Bush has left office.
4. As I mentioned earlier, we have $2.7 trillion of debt that will get classed as being under Obama, even though it was due to Bush cooking the accounting books on his watch. The only thing that Obama did was put a stop to the practice of off-book accounting that allowed Bush to camouflage the debt he was running up.
5. Finally, how does this graph have anything to do with my statement about which parties were holding political power during the Bush years?
R
redgreen5
Guest
Top said:
Yawn. Perhaps in the empty space between your ears.
I do not sit by the keyboard, waiting for one of the local wingnutters to respond. I have a life. I get over here to read these comments when the important stuff in my life is taken care of; I do not jump merely because people like you want to see a response.
Talk about badly disciplined children.
So if you're impatient for me to respond, tough. Instead of twiddling your thumbs, use the time wisely. Review my comments. Read something about economics. I'll get around to responding when I have time.
R
redgreen5
Guest
Top said:
I know far more than you do about these topics.
But then again, being smarter than you is not a very high bar to cross.
I think I have some expired yogurt that is smarter than you; at least it shows some signs of (intelligent) life.
I'm amazed at how stupid conservatives are. And then one of them gets out an even bigger shovel, and shows me once more how to dig himself in deeper.
R