-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
CBS news article reports Obama now has topped Bush with pushing our debt.
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
blankslate
Diamond Member
You do know that the fiscal year of the Gov't starts around Oct right?
That means President Obama was stuck with President Bush's budget until around the end of Sept. 2009. Just like President Bush was stuck with President Clinton's budget until the end of Sept. 2001
Instead of looking at a post and a chart that doesn't even cite any sources let's look at these numbers...
Here is a government website with the information we're looking for
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
You can reach the above site from this page http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx by clicking on the Daily Public Debt Totals link.
let's get down to the basic calculation.
On Sept. 30 2001 the debt was 5,807,463,412,200.06
On Sept. 30 2009 the debt was 11,909,829,003,511.75
so during the budgets that President Bush some control over the debt increased by
11,909,829,003,511.75 minus 5,807,463,412,200.06 = 6,102,365,591,311.69
So according to public data that others can look up and double check (hell double check me if you want I might've misread a line).
During the Bush Years the debt increased by about $6.1 Trillion....
That's quite a difference from the article that the Fox News site uses as it's source.
It's enough to make one want to look for themselves.
Maybe the person is correct in his assessment of future spending but Mark Knoller's statement that Bush increased the debt by about $4.9 Trillion needs to be sourced, because he lost $1.2 trillion somewhere
According to the same site as of 20 March 2012 the debt was about $15.6 Trillion and during the years in which the current administration had some influence over the budget the debt increased by about $3.673 trillion.
That means President Obama was stuck with President Bush's budget until around the end of Sept. 2009. Just like President Bush was stuck with President Clinton's budget until the end of Sept. 2001
Instead of looking at a post and a chart that doesn't even cite any sources let's look at these numbers...
Here is a government website with the information we're looking for
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
You can reach the above site from this page http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Markets/Pages/national-debt.aspx by clicking on the Daily Public Debt Totals link.
let's get down to the basic calculation.
On Sept. 30 2001 the debt was 5,807,463,412,200.06
On Sept. 30 2009 the debt was 11,909,829,003,511.75
so during the budgets that President Bush some control over the debt increased by
11,909,829,003,511.75 minus 5,807,463,412,200.06 = 6,102,365,591,311.69
So according to public data that others can look up and double check (hell double check me if you want I might've misread a line).
During the Bush Years the debt increased by about $6.1 Trillion....
That's quite a difference from the article that the Fox News site uses as it's source.
It's enough to make one want to look for themselves.
Maybe the person is correct in his assessment of future spending but Mark Knoller's statement that Bush increased the debt by about $4.9 Trillion needs to be sourced, because he lost $1.2 trillion somewhere
According to the same site as of 20 March 2012 the debt was about $15.6 Trillion and during the years in which the current administration had some influence over the budget the debt increased by about $3.673 trillion.
Last edited:
Last edited:
They tend to gloss over those facts but I take the liberty to constantly remind them also. 😉
Matt1970
Lifer
Yes you are. OCT 2008 the Dow was 8000 from a 14,000 high a year earlier. We were well in the toilet.
trenchfoot
Lifer
My pleasure. And thanks for the laugh your post just gave me.😀 Good thing my sarcasm detector is working just fine.🙂
The Dow is now back to 14,000 who gets credit for that?
boomerang
Lifer
So you can dish out the blame but not the credit.
Unemployment has not recovered - bad news - Bush actions w/ ME
Deficit going up - bad news - Bush actions w/ ME
Fuel prices shooting up - bad news - Bush actions w/ ME
Stock Market growth - good - Obama policies working
Stock Market decline - bad - Bush policies working
Ignore natural stock market cycles - just depends on whoe is in the saddle and at what point in the cycle you choose to look at.
Where did I say the economic collapse was all Bush's fault? I missed that memo. The Economic collapse was caused by 30 years of deregulation of the banking industry(from both sides of the aisle),Incompetent Fed Chairman's and totally incompetent supervision of the Financial sector.
Read these books it lays it all out...
http://www.amazon.com/Greedy-Bastar...?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1332422844&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-American-Stickup-Republicans/dp/1568584342/ref=cm_lmf_tit_6
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Money-Reckless-ofAmerican-Capitalism/dp/0143114808/ref=cm_lmf_tit_7
Last edited:
blankslate
Diamond Member
Mark Knoller has made a serious oversight in his calculations
Mainly that the fiscal year for the U.S. Gov't begins on Oct. first and ends on Sept. 30
Therefore President Bush actually added about $6.1 trillion to the budget... if you're going by numbers from the budget years that President Bush had some control over.
The article writer isn't a very good researcher I guess or he has never really talked to anyone who has worked for the Federal Gov't in some fashion. I went more into detail about the number sources in post #77
As for the future budgets... well it would be nice if President Obama was able to stop two major sources of spending as soon as he was inaugurated. Unfortunately if he had he would've been labeled the president who lost the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars in 2009.
Also consider the fact that during the time periods in question it was pretty much the only time lasting tax cuts were implemented while "wars" were going on in the past 100 years. Oddly enough President Obama wasn't able to undo those tax cuts... hmmm...
Last edited:
xBiffx
Diamond Member
Regardless of the date he used to begin calculations, I love it how people fight tooth and nail to try and make 8 years of Bush still look worse than 3 years of Obama. Even if we used your new calculation, you are still comparing 8+ years of Bush to not even 3 years of Obama. At the current rate of spending, Obama is going to be well over the Bush numbers. But keep grasping as straws and trying to figure out which turd smells better.
Matt1970
Lifer
Are you saying it's the Stimulus 3 years later?
LOLwut?
Go up to my post in #87 and download those books to your kindle you need to educate yourself ASAP.
blankslate
Diamond Member
They'll probably be about the same.
They have the debt from the war(s) in common being added to national debt while being in office.
You know what I'll even say that President Obama can easily add more to the debt than President Bush did; it's always easier to increase than decrease spending. Although President Obama's efforts to end (imo) unwise tax cuts during wartime, were blocked. I don't think you even need 3 guesses to figure out who did the blocking.
It also doesn't change the reality that President Bush is in fact the only President who lowered taxes and kept them lowered during a war in the past century. It was the Republicans in Congress who prevented that situation from being reversed.
Tell me again about a foul smelling PoS.
Love it or not please don't pretend that if some one linked an article that made President Bush worse than facts say he is or made President Obama looker better than the facts reflect and had a glaringly obvious oversight to certain people that someone wouldn't call attention to it.
If someone *is* going to write a piece like that they should make sure they understand that some organizations (in this case the Federal Government) don't have fiscal years that coincide with the traditional beginnings and endings of years.
Last edited:
I will say what I have said before, you need to spend money to help people when the economy takes a huge hit. Much of the money given shouldn't have been given to those it was. Or at least things should have been changed in exchange for the money. So I do agree that Obama should be spending money. Though I also thought the tax rate for the top bracket should have expired to previous levels, or added another bracket higher and put that to previous levels.
Where as bush had a strong economy for the most part till the end where it took a nosedive. During the strong economy he shouldn't have been giving all those tax breaks, started all those wars. We would be in a much better situation now had those decisions been different.
Both have greatly increased our debt, Obama had a reason to Bush did not. We need to be able to help stimulate the economy when things get bad, if we are cutting taxes and increasing spending when things are good. We end up with no where to go when things do get bad. The government shouldn't be planning on creating a bunch of long term jobs, but spending money as a transition so that others will hire due to the increased demand from those who get the temp government jobs.
Where as bush had a strong economy for the most part till the end where it took a nosedive. During the strong economy he shouldn't have been giving all those tax breaks, started all those wars. We would be in a much better situation now had those decisions been different.
Both have greatly increased our debt, Obama had a reason to Bush did not. We need to be able to help stimulate the economy when things get bad, if we are cutting taxes and increasing spending when things are good. We end up with no where to go when things do get bad. The government shouldn't be planning on creating a bunch of long term jobs, but spending money as a transition so that others will hire due to the increased demand from those who get the temp government jobs.
Matt1970
Lifer
LOL, you got cought playing both sides. All good is Obama's fault, all bad is Bush's. Maybe you need to do a little reading pal....
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
Bush's spending isn't what tanked the economy, so "pulling back on the stick" wasn't going to help it. Bush was scrubbing off speed doing a pointless continuous high-g turn, and his F100's weren't enough so he dipped massively into his altitude bank to maintain it. Obama came in and decided to take the turn out of the equation -- so now we have those F100's and altitude loss actually gaining the aircraft momentum. Once we have enough speed that the economy can generate lift on its own, THEN we can both retard the throttle while being able to maintain a gentle climb.
L2fly
Last edited:
simpletron
Member
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Jan 22, 2001 - 5,728,195,796,181.57
Jan 20, 2009 - 10,626,877,048,913.08
Change - 4,898,681,252,731.51
Jan 20, 2009 - 10,626,877,048,913.08
Mar 20, 2012 - 15,583,383,846,149.34
change - 4,956,506,797,236.26
So the following statement is 100% factual: The national debt has gone up more in the 3 years and 2 months that obama has been president than in the 8 years that bush was president. At the moment by ~$58 billion.
Also you can't really believe that bush is completely responsible for all the debt that occur between Jan 20, 2009 and Sept 30, 2009. Let's see Obama signs 400+ billion omnibus spending bill for FY2009 budget in March, ~800 billion ARRA bill(only part was spent during that time), spends half of TARP(350 billion),... and that just off the top of my head. Obama together with congress is responsible for 100% of the debt increase though either their actions or inactions because they have to power to cut spend or raise taxes to close the budget deficit but chose not to(and yes no action is a choice).
Obama chose to stay in iraq and afghanistan, and thus chose to take on that debt.
Obama's left hand blocked the end of bush tax cuts by signing their extension in 2010.
Maybe you should take some reading comprehension classes?
Throckmorton
Lifer
Uh what exactly do you Republicans propose Obama do? Cut government deficit spending and tank the economy? Oh right, that's exactly what you propose because you don't understand basic macroeconomics.
homercles337
Diamond Member
All the conservatives here need to learn some history:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
blankslate
Diamond Member
I can and I do... President Bush as well as President Obama agreed to tarp. If President Bush didn't then he could very well have kept it out of his budget.
I already explained why President Obama didn't withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner. The rabid right pundits in the media could've and would've labeled him as the President who lost those wars.
We differ in opinion what's new? it happens all the time on these boards.
You're ignoring the fact of when the budgets are determined for the federal government.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
