Debt under Obama increases $5 billion per day -- 3 times the Bush rate...

[posty]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/j...-trillion-mark/

 

The federal government is now $13 trillion in the red, the Treasury Department reported Wednesday, marking the first time the government has sunk that far into debt and putting a sharp point on the spending debate on Capitol Hill.

 

Calculated down to the exact penny, the debt totaled $13,050,826,460,886.97 as of Tuesday, leaping nearly $60 billion since Friday, the previous day for which figures were released.

 

At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.

 

"A $13 trillion debt is an alarm bell and a wake-up call combined, but Democrats are not even trying to pass a budget," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "How out of touch can Washington Democrats get? Instead of continuing to pay lip service to this issue, President Obama should call on congressional Democrats to pass a budget that provides the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to create jobs and grow our economy."

 

The White House would not comment for the record, but an official speaking on the condition of anonymity said the administration is "committed to restoring fiscal responsibility."

 

Spokesmen for the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees didn't return messages Wednesday.

 

In the budget he submitted to Congress in February, the president acknowledged that his plans are not enough to reduce annual deficits to sustainable levels, which he said amounted to a yearly shortfall of 3 percent of gross domestic product. Mr. Obama called for a fiscal commission to make recommendations to close the gap, and commission members at their meeting last week said even that may not be enough.

 

"I think we've got to be more ambitious than that," said Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "We really have to pick a trajectory that has the debt coming down. And there's probably no magic of whether it comes down 1 percent a year or 2 percent a year or whatever. But it's got to come down over time."

 

Underscoring the challenge of finding balance, Congress has not been able to pass a fiscal 2011 budget. The Senate Budget Committee has approved a proposed budget, but it has not been debated on the Senate floor, and House Democratic leaders have indicated that they may give up debt reduction altogether this year.

 

Several unofficial debt clocks had shown the debt crossing the $13 trillion threshold a week ago, though Treasury said those numbers were not official. Those clocks regularly recalibrate using Treasury numbers, but estimate growth rates in order to provide a per-second update on websites.

 

Treasury, meanwhile, reports numbers once a day and posts figures for the prior day. There was no figure for Monday because it was a federal holiday.

 

Total public debt includes two pots of money. One is normal government debt in the form of Treasury bills and bonds held by consumers, while the other is intragovernmental holdings, or money one part of the government borrows from another agency. That includes money borrowed from the Social Security trust funds.

 

Some analysts say the key measure is not the total public debt, but the debt in the hands of consumers.

 

That figure stood at $8.573 trillion on Tuesday, having jumped nearly $80 billion from Friday's number. By comparison, that one-day jump is well more than the $59 billion emergency war-spending bill that the Senate passed last week.

 

Mr. Obama charged the fiscal commission with finding ways to limit that number to 75 percent of gross domestic product.

 

The other half of the equation, intragovernmental debt to trust funds and the like, totaled $4.478 trillion as of Tuesday - a drop of about $20 billion from Friday's report.

 

The $13 trillion debt number is not significant other than that it's another milestone, but its tolling shows just how much debt has been amassed in a short time.

 

It took 197 days for the debt to rise from $12 trillion to $13 trillion, which is the second shortest trillion-dollar rise in history. The fastest trillion came at the end of 2008 and early 2009, when the Wall Street bailout created giant new obligations.

 

Congressional members and staffers, particularly on the Republican side, took a macabre interest as the debt flirted with $13 trillion all last week. Some lawmakers even jumped the gun in putting out statements based on the unofficial debt clocks.

 

At $13 trillion, that works out to an obligation of more than $42,000 for every U.S. resident.

 

"Throughout history, excessive debt has led to the demise of great nations," said Sen Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. "This milestone should be a wake-up call for Congress. No one will bail out America if we continue to live beyond our means."

 

Earlier this year, Congress and Mr. Obama raised the country's debt limit to $14.3 trillion, hoping it would give the government enough room to spend through the end of this year.

[darin3]

[bushwacked]

Who died?

[whomper]

Posty is so negative he can actually depress DMarc

[cliaz]

Shocker. This is what you get when you have an politically inexperienced person assume the role of Commander and Chief with a bunch of democrats in congress leading the charge. Democrats = large government = massive spending. When will people learn.

[posty]

Shocker. This is what you get when you have an politically inexperienced person assume the role of Commander and Chief with a bunch of democrats in congress leading the charge. Democrats = large government = massive spending. When will people learn.

 

Hopefully the voters will remember this come November...

[TimC]

Who died?

 

The future of your children and grandchildren.

[AtomicCEO]

Shocker. This is what you get when you have an politically inexperienced person assume the role of Commander and Chief with a bunch of democrats in congress leading the charge. Democrats = large government = massive spending. When will people learn.

 

Right. this debt originated late January 2009. This debt has nothing to do with starting two wars before then and crap-slamming the economy in 2008 under Bush. I actually have no memory of anything before Obama took office.

 

Are people really this stupid? Or was this facetious?

[Jimmy Neutron]

Right. this debt originated late January 2009. This debt has nothing to do with starting two wars before then and crap-slamming the economy in 2008 under Bush. I actually have no memory of anything before Obama took office.

 

Are people really this stupid? Or was this facetious?

 

So you're comfortable and happy with the rate Obama and the Dems are spending borrowed money???? Nevermind the fact that a great deal of that money is being spent on the Dem agenda and not on GOP screw-ups...

[bpwallace49]

So you're comfortable and happy with the rate Obama and the Dems are spending borrowed money???? Nevermind the fact that a great deal of that money is being spent on the Dem agenda and not on GOP screw-ups...

 

I for one would much rather have massive amounts spent on the citizens of THIS country then on rebuilding Iraq . . . as long as it is going to be spent anyway . . .

[Jimmy Neutron]

I for one would much rather have massive amounts spent on the citizens of THIS country then on rebuilding Iraq . . . as long as it is going to be spent anyway . . .

 

Well, you get the best of both worlds. It's still being spent on the people of Iraq and here.

[bpwallace49]

Well, you get the best of both worlds. It's still being spent on the people of Iraq and here.

 

isnt that the WORST of one of the worlds? Like the worst of the Iraq deal? Or is it like in a store "you break it you buy it?" After we leveled Iraq?

[moneymakers]

just wait till the soon to be liberal supreme court takes over.

 

Thats some real hope and change.

 

you voted for the end of USA come two years November.

 

you could say God help us all but you voted him out also.

[Jimmy Neutron]

isnt that the WORST of one of the worlds? Like the worst of the Iraq deal? Or is it like in a store "you break it you buy it?" After we leveled Iraq?

 

I'd rather be spending none of it in Iraq and Afghanistan and much less of it here.

[darin3]

I'd rather be spending none of it in Iraq and Afghanistan and much less of it here.

A-freakin-men.

 

Er, wait. Sorry. Less of it (or none of it) over there and transfer all that spending on problems here in our country. Sorry, read that wrong.

Edited June 4, 2010 by darin3

[westvirginia]

The future of your children and grandchildren.

 

And this right here is the crux that no one realizes - that pain for them will be very real, as they will have low levels of services and high taxes to pay for votes for today's politicians.

[i_am_the_swammi]

At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office

 

if my math is correct, he inherited a $10.6 trillion deficit?

 

yeah, we were in great shape when he took office didn't his predecessor start out with a surplus ? And its the Dems that do all the spending?

 

kinda like ragging on a relief pitcher entering a game when the score is 20-0, and he gives up a few runs.

[Jimmy Neutron]

if my math is correct, he inherited a $10.6 trillion deficit?

 

yeah, we were in great shape when he took office didn't his predecessor start out with a surplus ? And its the Dems that do all the spending?

 

kinda like ragging on a relief pitcher entering a game when the score is 20-0, and he gives up a few runs.

 

Again - so you are satisfied withe Obama and the Dem comgress doing more of the same wreckless spending - ramping it up even? The biggest problem with Obama and the Dems is that they are too much like Bush and the GOP congress - spendthrift Good Day, Sunshines with exactly ZERO sensible ideas about how to run a country.

[bushwacked]

Again - so you are satisfied withe Obama and the Dem comgress doing more of the same wreckless spending - ramping it up even? The biggest problem with Obama and the Dems is that they are too much like Bush and the GOP congress - spendthrift Good Day, Sunshines with exactly ZERO sensible ideas about how to run a country.

 

I'm not happy with the spending, but again, there is a prevalent opinion amongst economists that this latest ration of spending effectively prevented a economic collapse of monumental proportions. What exactly did the trillion dollar Iraqi welfare program achieve or prevent?

[caddyman]

if my math is correct, he inherited a $10.6 trillion deficit?

 

yeah, we were in great shape when he took office didn't his predecessor start out with a surplus ? And its the Dems that do all the spending?

 

kinda like ragging on a relief pitcher entering a game when the score is 20-0, and he gives up a few runs.

Don't know where those figures came from...but here are the actual numbers. I am looking forward to the days that the Obamunist cuts his deficit in half. You also know damn well the reason we went from a surplus to a deficit was 9/11. You libs might want to find something else to hang your hat on than comparing the Obamunist to W. on the deficit. That is and always will be a loser for you. You are better off saying that he is a lot better at offering entitlements than Bush. At least that flies.

 

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics

2001 128.2

2002 -157.8

2003 -377.6

2004 -412.7

2005 -318.3

2006 -248.2

2007 -160.7

2008 -454.8

TARP -750.0

Total -2751.9

 

Obama Budget Deficit FY 2009/10*

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistics

2010 -1750

2011 -1117

Total -2867

[keggerz]

Don't know where those figures came from...but here are the actual numbers. I am looking forward to the days that the Obamunist cuts his deficit in half. You also know damn well the reason we went from a surplus to a deficit was 9/11. You libs might want to find something else to hang your hat on than comparing the Obamunist to W. on the deficit. That is and always will be a loser for you. You are better off saying that he is a lot better at offering entitlements than Bush. At least that flies.

 

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics

2001 128.2

2002 -157.8

2003 -377.6

2004 -412.7

2005 -318.3

2006 -248.2

2007 -160.7

2008 -454.8

TARP -750.0

Total -2751.9

 

Obama Budget Deficit FY 2009/10*

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistics

2010 -1750

2011 -1117

Total -2867

Why is TARP broken out for Bush?

 

someone started the snowball rolling down the hill and we know what happens when it gets going...well it got its ass in big gear.

 

EDIT: another analogy is that as a forest fire grows they actually have to fight fire with fire...the bigger the fire gets the more you have to burn to fight the fire....I don't know the fix for the economy but it is pretty easy to see that what has happened is sorta like fighting a forest fire.

Edited June 5, 2010 by keggerz

[gbpfan1231]

Why is TARP broken out for Bush?

 

someone started the snowball rolling down the hill and we know what happens when it gets going...well it got its ass in big gear.

 

EDIT: another analogy is that as a forest fire grows they actually have to fight fire with fire...the bigger the fire gets the more you have to burn to fight the fire....I don't know the fix for the economy but it is pretty easy to see that what has happened is sorta like fighting a forest fire.

Yea - perfect analogy. Let's try to reduce crime by doing more raping and murdering - that will for sure reduce the crime rate.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'm not happy with the spending, but again, there is a prevalent opinion amongst economists that this latest ration of spending effectively prevented a economic collapse of monumental proportions. What exactly did the trillion dollar Iraqi welfare program achieve or prevent?

 

I don't doubt that not infusing trillions into a broken economy prevented a hugh problem. I also have no doubt that absolutely nothing that went wrong in banking and housing was fixed and that infusing those trillions of dollars into the economy will have an even worse affect down the road.

 

Bush will be condemned by history for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama isn't smart enough or courageous enough to pull out - more of being Bush 44. Our interests are not served there. Whatever "safety" we're chasing over there would be amplified ten fold if we used a fraction of the resources we are spending over there to secure our borders, ports and airports from the small, fringe elements of radical islam that actually have the capacity to strike at America.

 

Stop defending Obama and the Dem congress - they are ass clowns of the first order and could not lead a girl scout troop on a campout. I wish more people would realize this and remember what a bunch of ass clowns the GOP buffoons are and that they are wholly incapable of saving our country. There is no answer in traditional American politics. The sooner a majority of Americans realize actual Hope and Change lies outside the scope of democrats and republicans, the better.

[keggerz]

Yea - perfect analogy. Let's try to reduce crime by doing more raping and murdering - that will for sure reduce the crime rate.

apples and oranges but whatever floats your boat...like I said, I don't know what the exact fix is (I didn't vote for McCain or Obama) but I can see that once the snowball started why it has been so hard to stop...and yeah as has been said by economists etc...without the influx of money etc things could have been much worse...right or wrong, I don't know...but it is easy to see that many must look at it like a fire.

[keggerz]

The sooner a majority of Americans realize actual Hope and Change lies outside the scope of democrats and republicans, the better.