Discussion in 'World News & Politics' started by CowboyP, Mar 1, 2012.
No no no that is all Obama.
Much worse under Comrade Bush.
January 25, 2011
Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.
In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
If anyone thinks we're all happy with the money Bush spent you're just wrong.
you can read about this chart here
Somebody call the wahmbulance.
There are a lot of things that have contributed to this countries financial issues. Here is a graph I found interesting.
Perhaps we were spending too much in the 1990s and most of it on borrowed money?
this country does have a major spending problem, that is for sure. And our obsession with spending borrowed money knows no bounds.
When you start arguing a POTUS spending vs another POTUS spending your going into a lose lose argument, because Bush and Obama have both spent like idiots.
our Deficit issues didn't start with Bush and Obama, although they did their best to stomp on the gas peddle, they started long before that and I have 0 faith that the next guy elected is going to be any better at it
The key word in the graph above is "projections" which you can make what ever you want them to be. Since one congress cannot bind another from spending, projections to 2017 are absolutely meaningless. The whole graph is bogus.
Stupid graphic. Pick n' Choose. Pick n' Choose. As if these 10 items are the only thing our federal government pays for!
When he took office:
$5.768 trillion in national debt
Nearly doubled in 8 years to $10.626 trillion in national debt
(10.626 - 5.768) = 4.858
When he took office:
$10.626 trillion national debt and is now currently $15.418 trillion in national debt
(15.418-10.626) = 4.792
During Bush's 8 years in office with a huge war, our national debt raised 4.858 trillion dollars.
During Obama's first 3 years in office with increasing taxes proposed and ending tax cuts and getting out of those really expensive wars, our national debt raised 4.792 trillion dollars.
I can go ahead and do the spending comparisons of when democrats vs. republicans hold the majority in congress....but that actually makes the democrats look even worse with spending because the majority of the national debt increase in the Bush era came when Democrats held the majority in congress.
The point was who was spending more, bo takes the cake. Both Bush and bo have spent like madmen, the numbers bear out that bo has spent more at a much faster pace. He won't get another chance if my vote is the only one counted.
Also, I'm not saying Bush didn't spend more than I would have liked while he was in office I'm just pointing out the fact that our Federal government is growing much larger each and every day.
both of them have incredible spending numbers
2000....Fed Spend increased by 2.5%...GDP increased by 3.7%...+1.2% GDP
2001...Fed Spend increased by 1.8%...GDP increased by 1.2%...-0.6% GDP
2002...Fed spend increased by 6%...GDP increased by 1.3%....-4.7% GDP
2003...Fed spend increased by 4.6%...GDP increased by 1.4%...-3.2% GDP
2004...Fed spend increased by 3.2%....GDP increased by 3.4%...+0.2 GDP
2005...Fed spend increased by 4%...GDP increased by 2.6%..-1.4% GDP
2006...Fed spend increased by 3.9%...GDP increased by 2.9%..-1% GDP
2007...Fed spend increased by 0.6%...GDP increased by 2.8%...+2.2% GDP
2008..Fed spend increased by 4.6%...GDP increased by 0%...-4.6% GDP
2009...Fed spend increased by 3.6%...GDP increase by 2.6%...-1% GDP
2010...Fed spend decrease by 2.4%...GDP decreased by 2.0%..+0.4% GDP
When you look at Spend vs GDP they obviously haven't been making any smart decisions...there needs to be alot more decrease on that spend side as they are remarkably outpacing the GDP growth
so those number I posted..cumulatvie from 2000-2010..our govt spending increase by 12.5% vs our GDP growth
37% increase in spending (6.8% increase under Obama in spending and 30.2% increase in spending under Bush)......... and 24.5% increase in GDP
Anyone who ever took an accounting class can see that we can't keep this up
A post about a Wall Street broker's salary turned into another Bush vs. Obama debate. Shocking.
That's what a lot of us have been saying for some time on here. We dont' have an income issue (as Obama wants to suggest with his quest to raise taxes) we have a spending problem.
That's my point on "projections" to 2017. They are based on a percentage growth in GDP that we haven't seen since the mid-90's and that we've only seen a couple of times since WWII. They're pure fantasy, purely for political purposes.
It ain't happening.
Yes but my objection to this was that Obama is way outspending Bush..and it just isn't true...It may become true in the future, and he has a real shot do to it, but he is still behind when it comes to the Spending % increases that we saw under Bush
As RX pointed out..with the GDP falling by a HUGE 2% in 2010.....all the projections that we are getting can be thrown out the window
Separate names with a comma.