• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Debt Held by Public Tops $10T for 1st Time—Up 59 Percent Under Obama

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,114
Reaction score
33,461
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

Friday, September 02, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - At the close of business on Aug. 31--for the first time in the history of the country--the publicly held debt of the federal government topped $10 trillion, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury Department at 4:00 p.m. yesterday.

During Obama's presidency, debt held by the public has now increased by $3.71694 trillion--or almost 59 percent from the $6.3073 trillion in debt held by the public that the government owed to its creditors on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated
Click to expand...

And there we have it! This is Obama's legacy. Don't even try to blame Bush or anyone else.
 
American said:
Link
(CNSNews.com) - At the close of business on Aug. 31--for the first time in the history of the country--the publicly held debt of the federal government topped $10 trillion, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury Department at 4:00 p.m. yesterday.

During Obama's presidency, debt held by the public has now increased by $3.71694 trillion--or almost 59 percent from the $6.3073 trillion in debt held by the public that the government owed to its creditors on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated
Click to expand...
And there we have it! This is Obama's legacy. Don't even try to blame Bush or anyone else.
Click to expand...
So, Bush sets the house on fire, then moves out. Obama moves in, puts the fire out, but is to blame for the fire damage. Great logic if you're a Bush fan (or an Obama detractor) :doh

But okay, let's just play with the numbers. The period you outline (or more accurately, that L. Brent Bozell's website outlined for you) is 953 days. Backtracking 953 days from Bush's last day in office, we see that debt held by the public increased by $1.4681 trillion -- or almost 31 percent from the $4.8392 trillion in debt held by the public that the government owed to its creditors on June 12, 2006 (953 days before Bush left office). For exact numbers and dates see Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Now of course 31% is better than 59% when one is talking about a debt increase, but no one set Bush's house on fire, now did they? So even in good times, does Bush look all that good? And in comparison to that, does Obama look all that bad?

Of course, let's not overlook the CNS (formerly Conservative News Service) emotional plea: "for the first time in the history of the country". Of course, when on realizes that pretty much each and every day since Ronald Reagan took office that each and every succeeding day the debt was the highest than any time in the history of the country -- that each day was a new record in the history of the country -- then that emotional mind game loses a lot of it's punch. At least amongst critical thinkers. . . . .

And there you have it.
 
C'mon liberals, blame Bush. C'mon, you can do it.....
 
I blame the republican congress,

They have done nothing to improve the economy for the last 8 months, it is all their fault
 
I want to blame both parties, but I’m finding it exceedingly difficult to do so with you guys preemptively pardoning Bush. Stop it. Your umbrage at high debt is egregiously disingenuous in light of your adamant refusal to compromise to mitigate it.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I blame the republican congress,

They have done nothing to improve the economy for the last 8 months, it is all their fault
Click to expand...
No they inherited the economy from Pelosi and Reid. There's no cure for a combo like those two.
 
Last edited:
national debt : another component of the real cost of "cheap" imported goods that is not reflected in the retail price.
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
I want to blame both parties, but I’m finding it exceedingly difficult to do so with you guys preemptively pardoning Bush. Stop it. Your umbrage at high debt is egregiously disingenuous in light of your adamant refusal to compromise to mitigate it.
Click to expand...

You mean borrowing more money to put the U.S. further in debt? Is that the compromise you're referring to?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I blame the republican congress,

They have done nothing to improve the economy for the last 8 months, it is all their fault
Click to expand...

what about the Democratic Senate? They have not done much since they had control.

Actually, I blame both parties and the President for putting party politics ahead of the country.
 
American said:
Friday, September 02, 2011 -- By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - At the close of business on Aug. 31--for the first time in the history of the country--the publicly held debt of the federal government topped $10 trillion, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury Department at 4:00 p.m. yesterday. During Obama's presidency, debt held by the public has now increased by $3.71694 trillion--or almost 59 percent from the $6.3073 trillion in debt held by the public that the government owed to its creditors on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated
Click to expand...

Link And there we have it! This is Obama's legacy. Don't even try to blame Bush or anyone else.
Click to expand...
Being a free country, I believe I can blame whomever I want. Being intellectually aware, I can form my own opinions as to who is to blame rather than adopting one. While Obama has indeed employed Keynesian tactics (deficit spending) to try and battle the recession, let's look at some inconvenient facts:

1. Bush set the house on fire, then moved out. Obama moved in, and put the fire out. Now he is being blamed for the fire damage. Very convenient for the Obama detractors.

2. During the same time in office (some 950+ days), the public debt increased by about 31% under Bush (roughly Jun 2006 - Jan 2009). Oddly, I can't recall seeing any CNS (formerly Conservative News Service) news headlines on that fact. Now while 31% is better than 59% when talking about debt increases, Bush didn't inherit a house on fire, now did he? In fact, he inherited an essentially balanced budget, didn't he?

I await the blame for the 31% to be placed on the Democrats elected to Congress in Jan 2007
LOL.gif


As one metaphor goes, we're in a bit of a sticky wicket. Focusing on solutions instead of partisan blame would be a more productive approach.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Link



And there we have it! This is Obama's legacy. Don't even try to blame Bush or anyone else.
Click to expand...


Of course, its the "right news, right now".... but, get serious!

From your article:

".....During Obama's presidency, debt held by the public has now increased by $3.71694 trillion--or almost 59 percent from the $6.3073 trillion in debt held by the public that the government owed to its creditors on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated....."

This assumes that Obama is somehow responsible for the change in debt starting on January 21, 2009. Tell me, what can a president do on the first day in office to stop the accumulation of debt, particularly when handed an economy in deep, deep recession? Nada. Sorry, but Obama inherited quite a bar tab left by the drunken sailors of the previous administration, It was the previous set of economic ignoramuses, who started wars and expended medicare, paying for it with tax cuts, thus doubling the debt held by public taking it from $3.4T to $7.6T from Oct 1, 2001 to Sept 30, 2009 * (which is the budget year for which the president is responsible, the way normal educated people look at it).... Moreover, during that time, Bush had the advantage (since we are talking about public debt rather than total debt) of having social security in positive cash flow (receipts exceed expenditures), a condition that narrowed and then ended in 2010.

Its fair blame Obama for not correcting the economy, but screwing it up was so well done before he ever took the oath of office.

BTW... find some real news sources...

* - Total debt rose for $5.8T to $11.9T over the same period..

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
I blame the republican congress,

They have done nothing to improve the economy for the last 8 months, it is all their fault
Click to expand...

What have the Dems done to fix the economy in the past 4.5 years?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I blame the republican congress,

They have done nothing to improve the economy for the last 8 months, it is all their fault
Click to expand...

Actually, it IS the Republicans' fault, as they are supposed to legislate. However, Obama, as president, is supposed to lead, so it is the Democrats' fault too.
 
Karl said:
So, Bush sets the house on fire, then moves out. Obama moves in, puts the fire out, but is to blame for the fire damage. Great logic if you're a Bush fan (or an Obama detractor) :doh

But okay, let's just play with the numbers. The period you outline (or more accurately, that L. Brent Bozell's website outlined for you) is 953 days. Backtracking 953 days from Bush's last day in office, we see that debt held by the public increased by $1.4681 trillion -- or almost 31 percent from the $4.8392 trillion in debt held by the public that the government owed to its creditors on June 12, 2006 (953 days before Bush left office). For exact numbers and dates see Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Now of course 31% is better than 59% when one is talking about a debt increase, but no one set Bush's house on fire, now did they? So even in good times, does Bush look all that good? And in comparison to that, does Obama look all that bad?

Of course, let's not overlook the CNS (formerly Conservative News Service) emotional plea: "for the first time in the history of the country". Of course, when on realizes that pretty much each and every day since Ronald Reagan took office that each and every succeeding day the debt was the highest than any time in the history of the country -- that each day was a new record in the history of the country -- then that emotional mind game loses a lot of it's punch. At least amongst critical thinkers. . . . .

And there you have it.
Click to expand...

Are you as dizzy from the spin as your post?
 
American said:
No they inherited the economy from Pelosi and Reid. There's no cure for a combo like those two.
Click to expand...

Not that you can, but I'll ask for the sake of the forum, care to explain how they are responsible for a mess that was started in Clinton's era?

Furthermore, I fully realize you have absolutely no idea why a financial recession is different, but care to explain how either tax cuts or stimulus can actually cure a financial recession?
 
It's capitalism red in tooth and claw, innit? Privatise profit, socialise debt. Bankers gamble the economy into a colossal hole and get paid Billions for their trouble, workers suffer loss of jobs, homes, dignity, and get to pick up the tab for the tow-truck and rescue services too.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, it IS the Republicans' fault, as they are supposed to legislate. However, Obama, as president, is supposed to lead, so it is the Democrats' fault too.
Click to expand...

You are spoiling my fun

The point is the economy can be influenced by the government over the long term, it is (in the US ) not mandated by the government to grow or shrink. The US economy is going to shrink for the next 10 years or so untill all the bad debts that have been built up over the last 30 years or so get worked out. Republican congress, Democratic President or any mix of the two will not significant change this.

The only thing that the government can do at this time is make the decline quicker and deeper, allowing for recovery soon, or make the decline slower and more shalllow, but with the recovery a long ways away
 
Karl said:
Being a free country, I believe I can blame whomever I want. Being intellectually aware, I can form my own opinions as to who is to blame rather than adopting one. While Obama has indeed employed Keynesian tactics (deficit spending) to try and battle the recession, let's look at some inconvenient facts:

1. Bush set the house on fire, then moved out. Obama moved in, and put the fire out. Now he is being blamed for the fire damage. Very convenient for the Obama detractors.

2. During the same time in office (some 950+ days), the public debt increased by about 31% under Bush (roughly Jun 2006 - Jan 2009). Oddly, I can't recall seeing any CNS (formerly Conservative News Service) news headlines on that fact. Now while 31% is better than 59% when talking about debt increases, Bush didn't inherit a house on fire, now did he? In fact, he inherited an essentially balanced budget, didn't he?

I await the blame for the 31% to be placed on the Democrats elected to Congress in Jan 2007
LOL.gif


As one metaphor goes, we're in a bit of a sticky wicket. Focusing on solutions instead of partisan blame would be a more productive approach.
Click to expand...
No, you're a Commie, you have no freedom and no opinion unless the state gives it to you. Just remember your place.
 
obvious Child said:
Not that you can, but I'll ask for the sake of the forum, care to explain how they are responsible for a mess that was started in Clinton's era?

Furthermore, I fully realize you have absolutely no idea why a financial recession is different, but care to explain how either tax cuts or stimulus can actually cure a financial recession?
Click to expand...
OC, when you have the authority to speak for the sake of the forum, I'll make that attempt. But I know that will never happen, because you could never reduce your arrogance enough to be considered.
 
American said:
OC, when you have the authority to speak for the sake of the forum, I'll make that attempt. But I know that will never happen, because you could never reduce your arrogance enough to be considered.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point about your lack of knowledge about this subject. I goad you into actually attempting to answer...and you just come out and prove you can't do it. I have proven I understand these topics. You haven't even tried to.

People are going to start thinking we're in cahoots. I predict it here and you go and do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom