I always see this claim thrown around. How true is it, and if so, why?
Well, the U.S. National Debt (not the deficit) has gone up that much, more or less, in the last few years. I’d blame congress more than the president, though.
Only if you assume that every dollar of deficit spending the government has engaged in since 1/20/09 is “Obama’s deficit”. Much of it is mandatory spending that would have happened under any president. Bush’s last budget, including TARP spending and the GM bailout which started on his watch, are also part. Obama’s largest legislative achievement, the PPACA, decreases deficit spending.
Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion annual deficit.
$1.3 trillion x 3 = $3.9 trillion + supplemental stimulus of $800 billion = $4.7 trillion.
Which is roughly the amount of debt added since Jan 2009.
(The deficit peaked a little higher than $1.3 trillion in 2010)
TARP is a loan, and has been mostly repaid, so it hasn’t added to the national debt in any significant way.
Regards,
Shodan
How much has Iraq and Afghanistan cost, wars he didnt start?
That raises another point: A lot of the spending for those wars was kept “off the books” by the Bush administration, but when Obama came in, he put it on the books. Which can make it look like the entire price tag for the wars, including the Bush years, is on Obama’s ledger, since it was under Obama that all those dollars first showed up in the budget.
So, let me see if I understand, adding $6T to debt is a natural progression of things that no matter who the POTUS is would still accumulate because that’s how US rolls?
Hence the down rating from triple A.
By all indications… yes. That’s what you get for voting a Republican majority into the House in 2010 with the mandate to prove government is useless. The result is government becomes useless.
It’s usually worded as something akin to “The debt has rose $6 trillion under Obama.” Which is a bit misleading. The 2009 budget was submitted by the previous administration, and I’m not sure if congress passed it or that the final appropriations were even close to GW’s budget, but Obama gets blamed for it. This was the first $1T+ deficit of Obama’s three years. The deficit went down roughly $120b the next FY (2010) due to equal parts in increased receipts and decreased outlays. In fact, this was the first time gov’t spending decreased from the previous year since at least 1960.
Pretty much. Why bother trying to fix anything when blaming the other guy is so much easier?
We’ll end up like a broke married couple, arguing over it was his buying the boat or her buying the expensive handbags that made them wind up bankrupt.
Yes, you are understanding exactly right, according to the commandments of this message board. In fact, Obama really fought all that spending, now that I think of it. If only those a-hole Republicans would have listened. If they had, then there would never have been an additional $6 trillion in debt. It’s their obstructionism. Always is. As furt and Byran point out, the $6 trillion was inevitable, once the Republicans decided to render government useless and bicker with the president, or something like that.
Useful to remember it was only one agency of three.
You only think you’re being sarcastic. But the fact remains that there were substantial spending commitments on the books when Obama took office and a substantial decrease in revenues due to high unemployment, neither of which he could do much about. Add in the cost of the two wars he inherited (which had not been included in the budget) and you’ve accounted for a huge portion of the subsequent debt increase.
Of course there’s a rational discussion to be had over whether he could have spent less, whether the stimulus was necessary and/or worked and whether the Republicans in Congress have been constructive in their approach to the budget, but anyone starting from a standpoint of “OMG look how much Obama raised the debt!!!” is not likely to participate in it.
There is the simple and stupid answer: Yes, $6 trillion has been added since he was sworn in.
And there is the complicated and smart answer: Sort of.
And here is the Democratic response in one easy to read graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html
Oh, I didn’t know the SDMB had commandments! Could you provide us with a link to 'em?
I guess I could expand on my claim, provide supporting evidence for it, and you would just pretend it was too “compli-ma-cated to unnerstan’ fer a normal guy like me” and I’d’ve wasted my time.
Of course, the elections of 2010 are just the latest symptom of American irresponsibility. I suggest the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (i.e. the second part of what is commonly known as “the Bush tax cuts”) barely getting through congress was a major factor - cutting taxes while waging war is foolishness. It’s at though there was a perception that Iraq and Afghanistan were righteous duties, but without the recognition that duty requires sacrifice.
It’s like your country is roughly evenly divided, and the stupid half has a slight edge.
This is some EXCELLENT threadshitting. I am impressed.
So, what part of the posts ahead that you are mocking are you actually going to come back with actual facts to disprove? I’ll be waiting here, patiently.
I think it bear mentioning that the largest part of the deficit is the result of a slow economy which reduces tax revenue and increases social safety net spending (e.g. food stamps and unemployment).
What you want to do is look at how much Obama’s policies have increased the deficit over baseline versus how much previous presidents (I know the Republicans have disowned Bush after voting for him twice but I’m not inclined to let them) have increased the deficit over baseline.
Republican presidents have increased the deficit over baseline since Reagan. Most of this increase has come from tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts but a lot of it has come from wars and in the Bush presidency, things like medicare drug coverage.