How Much Did Obama Contribute To The National Debt?

Submitted by: bliznik 1 year ago in News & Politics
obama-with-book

There are three ways to look at the national debt by any president, and all of them are correct.

+ If you look at the debt before he took office and after he took office, the debt went up $7.7 trillion on his watch.

+ If you look at all the deficits when he was in office, subtract out Bush's, and add the projected deficit for 2017, the debt will increase $6.6 trillion on his watch.

+ If you only look at the policies that Obama himself implemented (or helped implement with Congress), the debt went up $983 billion on his watch.

Further reading: Here's another interesting read from The Washington Post. Their numbers show that at $20 trillion dollars, the national debt nearly doubled during Obama's two terms as the President of the United States.

There are 20 comments:
Male 296
Washington Times, not Washington Post. Dave Boyer's stories all sound like Fox News parroting. But I'm sure with titles such as "Obama Preaches Tolerance to Germans After Shattering Illusions of Hope and Change," I'm sure his articles are completely objective and unbiased.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
@pirhomaniak I support Liberal/progressive ideaologies but I also understand Democrats aren't perfect and they make mistakes. Even if people have biases that doesn't refute their data. He has some valid points. Everything with Obama isn't roses. Being able to be objective is important.
0
Reply
Male 296
No argument here. But it's not responsible reporting, considering all of the factors involved. And it's weirdly disrespectful for a news source to try and marginalize our president by referring to him as "Mister" and not "President."
0
Reply
Male 285
If you totally ignore the effects of the great recession this is extremely insightful.
0
Reply
Male 40,476
I don't think you can reasonably blame Obama for the expense of a war that was already going on when he took office.
0
Reply
Male 3,758
This...war is our biggest expense. It use to "stimulate" the economy but in modern times it is nothing but a drain on all resources.
0
Reply
Male 1,152
Once upon a time war meant building new things. New guns, new tanks, new ships, etc. Over the last 50 years, we have been building all of those things anyway. So war did not increase the manufacturing sector. War also used to drastically lower unemployment. By employing young unskilled people. But when compared to other wars, these last 15 years have had a very low number of soldiers.
0
Reply
Male 1,273
This is why we need Gary Johnson in office. That is his number one goal and first thing he plans on doing on the extremely off chance he gets elected, present a balanced budget. He did it when he was Gov. of New Mexico, made them into one of only 4 states at the time that had a balanced budget, so he's got a proven track record. According to his figures, under out last 2 presidents the deficit doubled while they were in office and he means to do something about it. Yeah, he's libertarian, but also according to him, and I tend to agree, most people are libertarian and don't know it, because your average libertarian is fiscally conservative but socially liberal, which is exactly what we need right now.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
I do agree with you. I'm voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Not sure which right now.(assuming Bernie doesn't make it).
0
Reply
Male 1,838
Thanks for adding that second article. I especially liked this quote: "Some of us in the tea party were concerned because it had doubled in the [previous] eight years. It doubled from five [trillion dollars] to 10 under a Republican administration. And many of us were adamant that Republicans needed to do a better job. We had added new entitlement programs, we had added new spending, and the deficit got worse under Republicans. Now we’re under a Democrat president, and it’s set to double again." Republican or Democrat, friggin' Congress HAS to balance the budget. Raise taxes, cut spending...all our upper-level politicians are absolutely horrible at doing the painful crap that is good for the economy, but won't get them re-elected.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
Fancylad does a terrific job putting up posts, eh? Real effort. He's greatly improved several of mine for sure. Better descriptions or additional information is good! Once in a while there's errors, lolz! Wrong video or weird words added, or important words left out. Almost always it is improved, or posted "as is" though.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
The truth of the matter here is we can't "cut" our way out of this. In my other post it talks about the Conservatives version is Austerity. CUT CUT CUT, don't tax the wealthy and growth will come like a magical unicorn shitting rainbows to save the day! The only people that can take advantage of the economy we have now are the wealthy. It's a change in the interest rate economy. One that benefits those at the top and squeezes everyone else.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
Obama re-signed the Bush "tax cuts" ok? Twice. Funny how when Bush did it? That was terrible and dumb screamed the MSM and Democrats. But when Obama did the exact same thing? The exact same Bill?? Silence. >>> 0.5% US growth last Quarter, and these initial estimates almost always get lowered (a little) when the rest of the data comes in. Not one Quarter at 3.0% or higher, never happened to an 8 year President before... unprecedented! Lolz!!
0
Reply
Male 296
Not gonna lie, every time I imagine a 50-59 year old man end a serious argument with "Lolz!!" I get a little creeped out.
0
Reply
Male 8,171
What are you talking about? I've been very vocal about the Bush tax cuts. I'm constantly going on about them. I don't absolve the President here. Once again the MSM is CORPORATE MEDIA. They benefit from these policies why would they be against them? That's why I support Bernie and Warren and anyone that will stand up for middle class America interests. You want a radical idea, we probably should think about what FDR did during WWII. He came out and said the maximum a person should earn in a ear was 45,000 or 25,000 I can't remember a year. Everything beyond that was taxed to the war. If you want to get our house in order that's what has to be done. Not a regressive tax but a plan to get it balanced, and stick to that plan. Neither Main stream party does anything about it. The Conservatives give us a dream joke resolution of cut cut cut and lower taxes will somehow fix everything. Reaganomics don't work, haven't worked, will never work.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
Obama re-signed the Bush Stimulus, and Democrats added about $630 Billion to it as well "in between" administrations. Obama signed that, not Bush. >>>Pick one date (or method) & apply it to every PotUS equally. You cannot possibly pin down "who spent what, when" for ANYTHING as complex as a US Budget! And furthermore? There hasn't BEEN a Budget for years now, it's all guesswork and continuances. Can anyone "project forwards" the COSTS of Obama's legislations into the future? Nope. So just pick a simple date and apply Occam's Razor. >>>Inauguration day works for me! The new PotUS has to re-sign anything passed between the election and that date, so it's "his name" after election day, effectively, but since he's not yet in office I prefer Jan.20. Debt To The Penny It's also easy to project Obama's debt to the next Jan.20 this way. Unlike their "method 3" that's just a joke!
0
Reply
Male 8,171
Like i've stated before. The bailouts were Socialism for rich people, screw everyone else. That's pretty much how it's been handled so far.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
Well? Since Obamacare is up over 1 Trillion in costs ALONE? I'd safely rule out that last number :-p I think it's at 1.6T? And adding more every year. And the Insurance companies want hundreds of millions in increased bailouts, above what they're already set to receive...
0
Reply
Male 1,838
You are correct insofar as this doesn't take into account future costs.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
Interesting stuff bliznik! They do a pretty good job at looking at the various methods too. #1 and #2 both have merits. I just think #3 isn't practical or remotely accurate. "The Buck Stops Here" is supposed to be the motto of the PotUS, eh? Not "It's All Bush's Fault!" Lolz!
0
Reply