By The Numbers

Obama stands to make previous Federal deficits look miniscule. From CBS:

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush’s two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama’s fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That’s more than 100 percent of the value of the nation’s economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

How many more years of this administration can we afford?


20 Responses to By The Numbers

  1. Nate says:

    It’s beginning to appear that the only way to pay down (not back) the debt will be by monetizing it. That is using inflation to pay down the debt with dollars worth a lot less that the ones originally borrowed. Of course the effect on our economy would be drastic, but since when has the effect of a policy ever entered into the liberal mindset.

  2. jackhudson says:

    Yes, and the situation isn’t helped by the fact that China just raised it’s interest rates. Hopefully some stability with a new Congress will give us a little breathing room.

  3. Kip says:

    If you’re going to spread lies like this, please don’t call yourself a “Christian”.

  4. jackhudson says:

    The numbers are from CBS News (Which I don’t think means ‘Christian Broadcasting Company’) – are you suggesting that CBS and the Treasury Dept. are lying?

  5. Kip says:
    It’s republican policies that are responsible for the debt and you know it. The debt will keep going up till we get revenues in line. And you wonder why the world hates you so-called “Christians”…

  6. jackhudson says:

    Well, again you are taking issue with the plain numbers reported by the Treasury; what you think this has to do with being a Christian is dumbfounding.

    And considering the Dems have held Congress since 2007, it would be absurd to suggest they had nothing to do with the current deficits, which have ballooned under Obama to historic proportions. I don’t hold the Republicans blameless, but the fact is this Administration and Congress needs to be reigned in, and the Dems are incapable of doing that.

    And if you can’t see that, then the problem isn’t spiritual, it’s a lack of intelligence

  7. Kip says:

    What exactly, do you want reigned in? Discretionary spending has been frozen – by Obama. You want to cut defense spending in half?

  8. jackhudson says:

    Maybe we could have a few less $800 billion dollar stimulus packages that do nothing except increase our debt, or not create new entitlement programs like Obamacare that we can’t afford – for starters.

  9. Nate says:

    The problem with Keynesian economics is this: while the government can spend enough money to end economic downturns, the level of spending required turns out to be outrageous. Government spending ended the great depression, once world war 2 started and the debt went up to 130% GDP. Prior to that jump it was just pointless debt spending. It just takes too much money to make this type of economics work.

    Cut defense spending in half. That wouldn’t fix the problem though. Cut it entirely. Still won’t fix the problem. About 23% of the budget goes to the military. The problem is entitlements. It is projected that mandatory spending, medicare, medicaid, social security and interest, will exceed revenues by 2030. You haven’t even started spending on the military or any other federal salaries yet.

    What to do, what to do… limit government spending to 85% of revenues until the portion of publicly held debt that is held by foreign nations is paid off. Start weening people off of social security. How? No idea, but it will have to happen.

    And bring back hanging. Won’t help the debt, but it will make me feel better.

  10. Justin says:

    There are two broadly defined “levers” the government can use to fine tune the economy. Monetary and fiscal polity.

    Bernanke has done all that he can, really, on the monetary policy front. Monetary policy is not working because people want more of their OWN money to spend, not borrowed bank money to spend. And with an effective tax rate of at least 40% in the US, it’s hard to blame them.

    We’ve literally ruined fiscal policy by deficit spending every single year. Of course the Keynesians tell us we need more deficit spending during times of recession, but this is obscene. During booms, we should be break-even at the federal level. So liberals have really broken off one of the levers so that it’s not an option any more.

    Stimulus also doesn’t work when it’s in the form of social engineering and waste. Road signs with no economic value, for example, do not create jobs that last. Wasting stimulus on programs like the “green your home” don’t work, either. Let the people spend their OWN money on things they want and need, and the economy will be helped somewhat.

  11. Justin says:

    And Kip,

    Social security and medicare are broken Ponzi schemes. The sooner you face this stark reality, the sooner you can put partisan hackery behind you and become part of the solution instead of the problem.

  12. Nate says:

    I completely agree with you. I was just saying that Keynesian economics work, it just has to be done on such a scale that its absurd to take that route.

    Its not even really deficit spending that’s bad, its who holds the debt. The only reason a country like japan can carry 200% of its GDP in debt is because its almost all held domestically. Its the difference between borrowing money from your uncle or a friend and borrowing from a bank. The bank is foreign countries in this example.

    Kip, discretionary spending is such a small part of the budget that it doesn’t matter if its frozen or not. That plus defense spending makes up around 30% of the total expenditures by the US government. Social security and the other two programs make up around 60%.

    You tell me where cuts need to be made.

  13. Kip says:

    Thank you, Nate. We can’t cut Social Security or defense, and healthcare reform will help cut Medicare expenditures. Tea Partiers cry about cutting, and there’s nothing to cut! We need more revenues, and that can only come by the richest 1% and too-big-to-fail corporations paying their fair share of taxes.
    Welcome to my world!

  14. Justin says:

    Actually, you can cut SS. We have no choice. If you inflate the dollar just to cover SS, then the people on SS will have lost purchase power anyways.

    Someone always loses in a Ponzi scheme that goes south, and SS is headed south. One generation will have to pay a bit knowing they will receive very little benefit. The next generation will have to pay a bit knowing they will receive nothing. By generation here I’m talking about people in a 10-year grouping or so.

    You can cut discretionary spending. There’s no sense in saying that it’s small so there’s no point in cutting it. Cut it, too.

    You can get us out of a war that politicians won’t let our soldiers even fight.

    You can allow government payroll to atrophy. As government workers retire, you simply do not replace them if there are others that can take over the work.

    You can tell new government employees that they will not get a pension after 20 years. They will have to work and contribute to a 401(k) or 403(b) like everyone else.

    You can limit the number of years people can be on welfare without a valid disability.

    There are literally thousands of common sense ways to cut the budget.

  15. Nate says:

    Kip, corporations do not pay taxes, businesses do not pay taxes, consumers pay those taxes in the form of higher prices.

    The top 1% already pays 40% of the taxes.

    The top 5% pays almost 60%.

    And the top 10% pays nearly 70% of all the taxes.

    They need to pay more? Their burden already seems pretty unfair.

    What gives you a right to an even bigger share of their money?

    You speak as if the money other people has rightly belongs to the government and these people are simply hiding it from them.

    It should be noted that the bottom 49% paid no taxes what so ever!

  16. Kip says:

    Of course they do. Or are you only talking about federal income tax? Billions in stimulus money went to bail out states because their revenues couldn’t keep up with state spending.
    But no taxes whatsoever? They don’t buy anything? Gas?
    And I don’t agree with the discretionary spending freeze, either. Sometimes earmarks are necessary. Also, I have no problem paying my taxes. Guess I’m not selfish enough to be a Tea Partier…

  17. jackhudson says:

    Kip, there isn’t any need to legislate it – you and others who want to see taxes raised are free to send in more of your income into the government right now without an act of Congress. If liberals are so generous, there should be millions who are willing to do this, right?

  18. Justin says:


    It’s not about being “selfish”. If you think the government is really behaving in our best interest, and that we’re the ones being selfish, they have you right where they want you.

    I love participating in charity. I hate paying taxes that go to feather the nests of career politicians, lobbyists, etc. If you can’t understand that, then rational discussion just isn’t going to be possible.

  19. Nate says:

    If you want to talk sales tax than you are right. I mean on the federal level though. States also may have different tax codes that do end up taxing more of the lower 49%.

    But states needed to be bailed out because they can’t print money like uncle sam can.

    They tax plenty, they just spend too much.

    The political nests here in Maine are well feathered with democrat voting, welfare recipients. We are the state with the highest tax burden yet our fiscal house is a mess. 13.5%!!!!! in addition to federal taxes!!!!! If I were going to start a business and file a personal return (which most small businesses do)why the hell would I do it here? that costs jobs and doesn’t create any wealth whatsoever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: