It's Official: President Obama Has Added More to the National Debt than President Bush

Yesterday I looked at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of President Obama's 2012 budget framework. Politico headlined an article on the same report: "Exploding debt under Obama's policies." But as CBS News shows today, we've already seen an explosion of debt under Obama:

Mak Knoller of CBS writes:

The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

(Note that total national debt is slightly different from Debt Held by the Public, which is what the CBO analysis focused on.)

Comments

[John]

Hey Shreek. Go fuck yourself.

[Tim]

I'd be very surprised if he showed his face here.

[shrike]

Bush turned a surplus into a $1.3 deficit.

($1.3 trillion x 3) + $787 billion surplus = debt added since Jan 2009.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....9-deficit/

[Doesn't matter at all]

"Bush turned..."

Then the fact that It's Official: President Obama Has Added More to the National Debt than President Bush means Obama must REALLY be a fuck up.

AHAHAHAHAHAH FUCK YOU SHRIKE!

MAKE MORE EXCUSES! TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT TO BUSH AGAIN, SO WE CAN POINT OUT THAT SINCEIt's Official: President Obama Has Added More to the National Debt than President Bush, OBAMA IS WORSE!

AHAHAHAHAHAH

[Doesn't shrike always say...]

"Bush turned a surplus into a $1.3 deficit."

We're discussing debt, not deficit fuckwit.

If nothing else, the words are different, use that as your guide if you have to, but please TRY to keep up.

[Episiarch]

So it shows its face only to get the debt/deficit distinction wrong.

Laughable.

[shrike]

Bullshit. Analyzing where the national debt came from is meaningless without breaking it down by year.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Analyzing where the national debt came from is meaningless without breaking it down by year.

An assertion which invalidates Klein's article cited below.

[Episiarch]

Bullshit. Analyzing where the national debt came from is meaningless without breaking it down by year.

Holy shit that's awesome, I remember the exact thread where someone told you that when you were wrong.

Hilarious that your idiot ass trots it out to defend yourself when you're wrong.

[Keith Olbermann]

You SIRRRR are correct. It is good to have federal budget debt!

[sloopyinca]

Bush turned a surplus into a $1.3 deficit.

Fine. I've got a buck-thirty in my pocket. I'll send that in to the IRS. Now, how do we tackle the FIVE FUCKING TRILLION your savior Obama has tacked on to the debt?

[Sudden]

I've got a buck-thirty in my pocket. I'll send that in to the IRS.

I have to think that the quality of the Imperial Russian Stout you're getting for $1.30 is pretty bad. I'd splurge the extra bucks to get a bomber of something tasty like Stone's IRS or even a four pack of Old Rasputin.

[sloopyinca]

When are you gonna be done with this "no drinking" shit so we can all get drunk in SoCal before EDG moves to Indy?

[Gilbert Martin]

"Bush turned a surplus into a $1.3 deficit."

You can't even prove THAT.

Congress controls the federal government purse strings - not the president.

And the Dems were running that show for the last 2 years of Bush's term.

[shrike]

Bush's fault!

[Restoras]

Needz moar christfag.

[Tim]

Long, server recessions tend to do that.

[Auric Demonocles]

Nope. Being unable to limit your spending to a paltry $2.3 trillion does that.

[Paul]

Long, server recessions tend to do that.

Which is why you cut spending when the revenue stream slows down. Otherwise, you end up with long, severe recessions.

[Proprietist]

As I have no dog in this fight, isn't it kind of unfair to hold a president's first year against "their" record when their predecessor allocated the money for that year? 2009 was the worst spending year ever, and most of that spending came from Bush (other than the $100b in FY1 of the stimulus).

[P B]

Bush as el Presidaente but team Blue running the legislative bodies.

[Old Soldier]

Too Rino to veto their crap.

[shrike]

GOP ran everything until 2007.

DeLay and Frist - don't forget them.

[P B]

I keep trying but this is their tarbaby as much as Pelosi, Reid, Behner, & Obama.

[Mr. FIFY]

How surprising... shrike, refusing to blame Team Blue for even the tiniest morsel of wrongdoing.

[regeya]

And some folks refuse to put any blame on Team Red. Sad to see the GOP Rabble Machine has taken over Reason; go back to TheBlaze and Michele Malkin if you want to indulge in the Blame Everything On Democrats idiocy.

[Tim]

"isn't it kind of unfair to hold a president's first year against "their" record "

Nope. He took the job, and that was part of the deal.

[R C Dean]

Never forget, either, that TARP was passed after Obama took office, and ran up the debt for FY 2008.

[Dick Fitzwell]

Are you talking about Obama's stimulus bill? It ramped up spending during Bush's last fiscal year ('09).

TARP was Bush's bailout baby.

[Paul]

TARP was Bush's bailout baby.

Like Obama wouldn't have signed it with two Sharpies.

[Dick Fitzwell]

Well, duh!

[Masturbatin' Pete]

Obama VOTED FOR the damn thing.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

I know that no one really remember this - especially Obama, because he never showed much interest in the job - but Obama was a UNITED STATES SENATOR before he was the president. Odd to put spending during Bush's term entirely on his shoulders when Obama voted for so much of it.

[shrike]

LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALA BUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Proprietist]

I mean, as a libertarian I would support a President gutting department budgets that have already been allocated for the fiscal year. But I also recognize that's not a realistic expectation when it comes to normal operating procedure in DC.

It's kind of like saying that the moment Obama assumed office, all the blood of soldiers killed in Iraq is suddenly on his hands. Sure, technically he could have commanded his generals to book all troops on the next flight home, but trying to smooth the transition and minimize outcomes that would completely nullify the mission there still doesn't mean he's instantly responsible for the wasteful foreign policy directions of the Bush Administration.

[robc]

I agree. I figure you start giving "blame" to each president starting with the fiscal year that starts Oct 1 of their first year in office.

Unless they sign stuff to add to the current year's spending.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

As I have no dog in this fight, isn't it kind of unfair to hold a president's first year against "their" record when their predecessor allocated the money for that year?

Not really--in fact, Obama made it worse. Bush's budget was never actually passed, because he threatened veto additional spending that Team Blue wanted to put in the budget. After Obama took over, he passed a budget that included all of what Bush wanted to spend PLUS an additional $400 billion on top of it.

You can blame Bush for instituting the initial template, but even then it wouldn't have been as bad as what Obama actually signed into law.

[The Mad Titan]

If it's the same for every president, how is it unfair?

[Jonny Scrum-half]

It's unfair in this instance because the circumstances under which Bush took office were very different than those under which Obama took office. Bush took office when there was slow growth, but Obama inherited a major problem, which greatly reduced "revenues," thereby increasing the deficit (and the debt). Also, Bush inherited a budget that was essentially balanced, so he was starting from a better place than Obama, who didn't inherit a balanced budget.

[robc]

He could have pushed thru a balanced budget.

[sloopyinca]

Yeah, that and Obama's black.

[Episiarch]

"It's unfair in this instance because the circumstances under which Bush took office were very different"

Blah blah blah, that's the whole fucking point troll, it's always different.

And it's always fair.

[Ryan]

This is a comparison of 8 years vs. 3 years and 2 months, so you might want to rethink your reasoning.

[Auric Demonocles]

Also, Obama was in Congress.

[Proprietist]

Well, we're comparing presidencies "adding more to the National debt". Assuming (somewhat inaccurately) that the debt is primarily the President's responsibility, at least we can try not to blame the President for the hogwild spending in the last fiscal year of his predecessor. The spending for FY2009 should be divided between what Bush approved and what Obama approved.

Also if we're being honest with the budget numbers, Obama deserves credit for being the first president to cut outlays for the first FY he was responsible for compared to his predecessor's last year in decades.

[adam]

When Obama took office, only the FY09 DoD appropriations, Deparment of Homeland Security appropriations, and VA appropriations had been signed into law. He signed the rest into law himself on March 11, 2009, plus he added a defense supplemental, cash for clunkers, and the stimulus.

[Proprietist]

He signed $410 billion out of $3.517T in FY2009 budget outlays. FY2010 cut overall outlays, even with the stimulus factored in.

[Sudden]

2009 was the worst spending year ever, and most of that spending came from Bush (other than the $100b in FY1 of the stimulus).

Although you are right about 2009 being a record spending year, a significant chunk of that spending resulted from TARP, and most of that money came back over the subsequent two years. But rather than using it to lower the baseline, Obama took it as a built in baseline bumper and frittered the money paid back by the banks away.

[Paul]

McChimpyBurton was responsible for everything that happened the first five minutes he was on the job. Michael Moore said so.

Live by the politickin', die by the politickin'!

[rac]

Who is shocked? Statists are not concerned with debt. The more the state owns, or provides,or at least pretends to provide, in the way of services, the more powerful it becomes. That is the goal of the state.

[Mr. FIFY]

It's easier - and more logical - to place blame on both the current Oval Office figurehead, and the previous one.

[sarcasmic]

Don't put blame on the House. No, please don't put the blame there. It's not like they have the power of the purse. It couldn't be their fault. Nope. Can't blame the House.

[Pro Libertate]

It's insane how wimpy Congress has become. They should run amok, as the press will blithely credit or blame the president, either way.

[Mr. FIFY]

Them, too, sarcasmic... but the ultimate blame goes to the Head Man What In Charge.

[sarcasmic]

When was the last time Congress passed a budget?

Hasn't the federal government been running on 'continuing resolutions' for like five years or something?

[adam]

the budget and appropriations laws are different matters. All of the appropriations for FY12 have been signed into law.

[sarcasmic]

Who knew the debt followed Moore's Law?

[Pro Libertate]

Apropos of nothing, Obama's full name anagrams to "Cash abuse, brain amok."

There is less meaning to be derived from "Congress of the United States." "Unfettered caste tossing hos?"

[Insanely Cop]

Are you serious?

[robc]

Ronald Ernest Paul is an anagram of:

nut reads near poll

[robc]

Willard Mitt Romney is an anagram of:

Tiny Worm Treadmill

[Pro Libertate]

He needs to work on that. A good name anagram is critical to a successful campaign.

[Into Zen Itching]

Heh heh.

[Joe M]

Willard Romney: Drill, War, Money

or: Weirdly Normal

[Pro Libertate]

I ran across Weirdly Normal a few weeks ago--it's a good one for him.

[sloopyinca]

It's Official: President Obama Has Added More to the National Debt than President Bush

RAAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!!!

[JW]

BOOOOOOOOSH!!!

[sarcasmic]

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Meaningless statistic.

That's like comparing an employees debt to his employer's income.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Not necessarily--a nation that spends far more than it produces won't remain solvent for long. Just ask Greece.

[sarcasmic]

government != society

For that statistic to have any meaning it should compare government debt to government revenue.

Comparing government debt to what society produces is meaningless.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

The GDP includes government spending in the calculation, so it's absolutely relevant to the discussion. Start instituting the rule of 72 towards debt/GDP growth rate calculations, and eventually that nation won't be able to sustain its economy because the debt service and obligations will far outstrip the nation's productive capacity.

[sarcasmic]

That GDP includes government spending makes it in itself meaningless, since whatever government spends must first be either taken by force or borrowed from people who could have put it to productive use.

So comparing debt to GDP is doubly meaningless.

[adam]

It's not meaningless if the employee has the ability to take the employer's income as his own any time he wishes.

[JW]

You don't think that a total debt that would require a sum greater than total national private economic output to repay, isn't significant?

Not to mention a complete lack of interest to repay the debt.

[sarcasmic]

I didn't say it is insignificant, I said it is meaningless.

[JW]

That we and our descendants are on the hook for this bill is meaningless?

Gubmint spending is only part of GDP, yes, that's true. That the gubmint debt is at 100% of GDP already is even more shocking, since gubmint spending is ~25% of that figure.

So no, not meaningless, unless you have some secret plan of getting you and your offspring out from paying taxes.

[R C Dean]

That's like comparing an employees debt to his employer's income.

No, because this employee has the authority to appropriate as much of his employer's income as he wants.

The analogy doesn't work any way you put it, but it would be closer to say that this is like comparing the owner's debt to the business's income.

[sarcasmic]

Fuck off, slaver.

[GW]

That "Bush's fault" excuse could be made to work for the first couple of years. But even the dumbest Americans should be hip to this game by now.

No such luck.

[The Other Kevin]

To be fair, we shouldn't blame Obama for this. After all, if they had passed HIS budget, these numbers would be way worse.

[sarcasmic]

+10

[Brendan Connell]

"How much has Obama added to the debt, anyway? There are two answers: more than $4 trillion, or about $983 billion. The first answer is simple and wrong. The second answer is more complicated but a lot closer to being right."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Why am I not surprised that Klein is lying so unashamedly here?

[shrike]

There is no lie in that piece. Bush went crazy spending, face it.

[Brendan Connell]

Why are you not making any attempt to identify which parts of the piece are lies?

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Oh, I'm sorry--are we still in Afghanistan, or no?

Secondly, the Debt to the Penny charts don't lie--during Obama's term, the debt has gone from 10.6 trillion to 15.5 trillion. Klein can disingenuously state this in an attempt to deflect that:

But ask yourself: Which of Obama's policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt?

but the answer, for anyone over the age of 10, is that Obama is responsible for the policies that have been run under his watch. That you refuse to admit this shows just how stultified your partisan mind is.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

The healthcare cost estimate under Obama is probably the biggest lie of all, considering that government spending on healthcare has gone from $53 billion in 1980 to $820 billion in 2011, a 9.2% annual increase. Considering that the CBO is now claiming Obamacare will cost twice as much as what the President claimed, that $123 billion savings is a pipedream.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

I am continually dismayed and amused at the spectacle of Ezra Klein's career.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I'd think the leftists would actually want to give Obama credit for this. After all, isn't it their mantra that the way out of the current bad economy is for the government to spend us out of it? That deficit spending is good?

Why would they try to duck it with the usual "Bush's fault"?

[Dan Ancona]

Sorry to bring some facts into this but here's a nice graph showing the sources of the debt:

http://demdash.us/clip/5

The ongoing structural deficits are mostly due to the Bush tax cuts. You know, the huge tax cuts that were supposed to unleash a torrent of supply-side jobs, and instead fed a severe recession and a really horrifying quantity of unemployment.

[JW]

C-

[shrike]

Bush is a demi-god here. You're not allowed to cite facts that denigrate him.

[Restoras]

Needs citation - and more christfag.

[DesigNate]

Come on shrike, you know damn good and well no one on this board likes bush.

[Mr. FIFY]

"Warren Buffett is a demi-god. You're not allowed to cite facts that denigrate him."

FIFY'd. No charge.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

The ongoing structural deficits are mostly due to the Bush tax cuts. You know, the huge tax cuts that were supposed to unleash a torrent of supply-side jobs, and instead fed a severe recession and a really horrifying quantity of unemployment.

Sorry to bring in more facts, but now that the U3 is dropping, is that the result of the Bush tax cuts AND the Obama cuts in the payroll tax? If they fed a severe recession, why was the U3 low up until Bear Stearns blew to pieces?

The ongoing structural deficits are mostly due to the Bush tax cuts.

The tax cuts certainly aren't helping, but that's beside the point. We could go back to 2006 levels of spending and have a surplus, without any tax increases at all. So it looks like you're full of shit on this point.

[R C Dean]

We could go back to 2006 levels of spending and have a surplus, without any tax increases at all.

Ding ding ding. This is the point. If you increase spending to reflect inflation and population growth, you have a deficit, but its much, much* smaller.

The vast bulk of the deficit comes from actual growth in government spending relative to the size of the economy.

*Much.

[R C Dean]

Inflation since 2006 is around 12 - 13%. Population has grown about 5%. Call it 18% growth overall.

Federal outlays in 2006 were $2.65T. Increasing for inflation and population growth runs this up to $3.12T for 2012. Tax receipts for 2012 are estimated to be $2.6T. Deficit would be $500B, 38% of our projected 2012 deficit.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

I have offered liberals this deal, and yet none of them seem to take it.

Anybody remember the 90's? Democrats love to talk about how great those times were, and seem to think that the tax rates that Bill Clinton set are responsible. The implicit argument is that had Clinton not set tax rates at those levels, there would have been no dotcom boom and no stock market pig-out. Or something. Whatever. Here's the deal:

(1) You can have your Clinton-era tax brackets back, but you have to include all of them. You can't just jack up the highest bracket. And brackets are adjusted for inflation.
(2) Per capita spending returns to 1998 levels, adjusted for inflation.

Deal? I didn't think so.

[Dan Ancona]

So in retrospect, the tax cuts weren't really about creating jobs, but just keeping one indicator basically flat? That sounds like the soft bigotry of low and retrospective expectations.

And heehee, why stop arbitrarily at 2006? Why not go back to 1980!

[JW]

why stop arbitrarily at 2006? Why not go back to 1980!

And who says the left is out of good ideas?

[Pro Libertate]

I'm in! 1980 it is!

[Red Rocks Rockin]

So in retrospect, the tax cuts weren't really about creating jobs, but just keeping one indicator basically flat? That sounds like the soft bigotry of low and retrospective expectations.

I'm not the one arguing that the tax cuts directly impacted the U3--you were. So your lame attempt at misdirection in your follow-up is meaningless.

And heehee, why stop arbitrarily at 2006? Why not go back to 1980!

Heehee, why not go back to 1960 levels, inflation-adjusted? We spent less per capita and on the aggregate during that time period as well.

[Mike M.]

The ongoing structural deficits are mostly due to the Bush tax cuts.

First of all, they're the Bush-Obama tax cuts now; don't you know that Obama not only extended all of the Bush tax cuts, but has cut the payroll tax as well?

Second of all, you're wrong. The structural deficits are partially due to the significant downturn in revenue brought about by the ongoing depression, but mostly they're due to the inane practice of "baseline budgeting", where the budget has almost always automatically gone up by seven or eight percent per year in spite of growth that hardly ever approaches those levels.

[Gilbert Martin]

"The ongoing structural deficits are mostly due to the Bush tax cuts"

Nope.

They are the result of the federal government spending vast sums of money on activities it never had any Constitutional authority to engage in.

A tax cuts would have to reduce federal revenue below the level needed to finance the specific activites that James Madision intended for the federal government to be doing in the nanosecond the ink of his signature was drying on the Constitution for the cause of any deficit to ever be anything other than government spending.

[Arcaster]

^^This^^

[Dick Fitzwell]

Will there ever be a time when people will acknowledge that debt and deficits are not created by a reduction of revenue? Deficits can only come from spending more than you take in. It's always the spending.

Hypothetical: You just made your last payment on your mortgage and you finally own your home. It was the only large debt you had--no car payments or tuition, etc. Of course there are other things such as utilities and insurance and other bills that you already budget for, but you can consider yourself debt free. When you get to work the next day you are informed that you will be the victim of a pay cut. By sheer coincidence, your monthly income is reduced by the exact amount as your mortgage payments. How long will it take you to go into debt?

[DesigNate]

Why do you hate poor and middle class people?

[Masturbatin' Pete]

You know, the huge tax cuts that were supposed to unleash a torrent of supply-side jobs, and instead fed a severe recession and a really horrifying quantity of unemployment.

Were you around between 2002 and 2007? Not a bad recovery from the dotcom bubble. Unemployment around 5.5%.

I'm not saying that things were perfect in those years, or that the health of the economy was not distorted by the housing bubble. But look, recessions are inevitable. Blaming 2001 tax cuts for a 2008 recession is as inane as blaming Clinton's 1993 tax hikes for the 2001 recession.

[WWNGD?]

"Blame Obama" is the new "Blame Bush"

[Rob McMillin]

To be fair, didn't Bush and the Congress hide a lot of the deficit by keeping the war off budget for all of his presidency?

[R C Dean]

That doesn't keep it off the deficit, which is the difference between money going out and money going in.

What they did was run it as a line item separate from the DOD budget.

[Masturbatin' Pete]

This myth just won't die.

War appropriations were made outside of the normal budgetary process, but whenever anyone reported deficit and debt figures, those numbers always reflected spending.

Obama did the same thing, more or less, with the stimulus. That spending wasn't part of the normal budgetary process. It was a special appropriation. But it's still part of the deficit.