Obama February deficit exceeds Bush's entire 2007 deficit

[_Buffalo]

A majority of national debt has been incurred under Republican administrations.

[_EAllusion]

Wow. Droopy edited the heck out of that post. Apparently he felt a strong urge to compare me to Paul Krugman, which is pretty humorous if you understand my actual views on economics.

Again, my post above is just claiming that the current running deficit relative to the last period of surpluses is primarily caused by Bush era polices after you take out of the drop in tax receipts from the recession. More specifically, the tax cuts, wars, and Medicare Part D. BCSpace clearly was implying something 180 degrees the opposite, hence my post. This is just a fact, and focusing on future deficits is utterly beside the point, so um, yeah. I'm not defending Obama administration policy. I don't support Obamacare, for instance, and the rant on it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

Apparently Droopy thinks the 14 trillion in national debt is primarily or at least significantly caused by Obama policies despite most of it being accumulated before Obama even took office. I think he's confusing the national debt with the deficit, but in any case it leads him to just spout that off the top of his head.

I'm going to quote him just so that stays for posterity:

Delusion here expects one to believe that 700 billion in bailout money and the Iraq war (which in point of empirical fact is utterly dwarfed by Obama's past and projected deficit and federal debt creation) can with straight face be set side by side with 14 trillion (and growing) in federal debt against the earnings of generations of future Americans. Much of that 14 trillion is solely the responsibility of the Obama administration and its spending priorities...

"Much" apparently is code for something like 7-10% give or take and depending on how you assign responsibility. No matter erudite you try to sound, you can't dodge that kind of ignorance.

[Guest]

Wow. Droopy edited the heck out of that post. Apparently he felt a strong urge to compare me to Paul Krugman, which is pretty humorous if you understand my actual views on economics.

Which is?

Again, my post above is just claiming that the current running deficit relative to the last period of surpluses is primarily caused by Bush era polices after you take out of the drop in tax receipts from the recession.

1. The surpluses at the end of the nineties never existed in reality. They were purely government accounting artifacts.

2. See above.

More specifically, the tax cuts, wars, and Medicare Part D. BCSpace clearly was implying something 180 degrees the opposite, hence my post. This is just a fact, and focusing on future deficits is utterly beside the point, so um, yeah. I'm not defending Obama administration policy. I don't support Obamacare, for instance, and the rant on it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

The Iraq war, whatever else you think about it, is quite literally pocket change relative to the post 2008 deficits and Obama's federal debt creation.

Apparently Droopy thinks the 14 trillion in national debt is primarily or at least significantly caused by Obama policies despite most of it being accumulated before Obama even took office.

The rate and size of its accumulation has roughly doubled since Bush left office, and is now expanding at a velocity far beyond any past accumulation.

I think he's confusing the national debt with the deficit, but in any case it leads him to just spout that off the top of his head.

Total federal debt reached some 9 trillion (the official debt ceiling, in any case) in 2007, but only a fraction of this can be laid at the feet of the free spending George Bush. That debt is the consequence of decades of of deficit spending by both parties, but primarily by the Democrats, who's are the major purveyors of the vast nanny state (including "off budget programs like Social Security) that consumes has for decades consumed the lion's share of federal spending, and does so now.

Since that time, Obama has added some 6 trillion on top of this, not counting the tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities of the unsustainable Social Security and Medicate programs, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and yet another trillion added to the new federal budget.

It is not that Obama has added all of the 15 trillion, but the rate and size of his additions and the fact that there appears to be no end in sight to either his desire to create endless streams of phantom money or to raise taxes.

I stand by what I said above. Only a fraction can be placed at the feet of George Bush. The vast bulk of such accumulation is from past Democratic congresses and liberal Republican presidents such as Nixon. Bush, as bad as he was, is still only a warming up phase compared to what Obama has already accomplished and is projected to move forward with so long as he is in office.

Heritage, by the way, as with virtually all other entities within the conservative intellectual movement, have never let George Bush and his Republican congress of the hook for our present woes (if you read the material at the links I provide, which are only a small smattering of the criticism he has received there and in other venues).

I'm going to quote him just so that stays for posterity:

Delusion here expects one to believe that 700 billion in bailout money and the Iraq war (which in point of empirical fact is utterly dwarfed by Obama's past and projected deficit and federal debt creation) can with straight face be set side by side with 14 trillion (and growing) in federal debt against the earnings of generations of future Americans. Much of that 14 trillion is solely the responsibility of the Obama administration and its spending priorities...

"Much" apparently is code for something like 7-10% give or take and depending on how you assign responsibility. No matter erudite you try to sound, you can't dodge that kind of ignorance.

When Obama left office, the debt stood at somewhat over 10 trillion. At the present time, the national debt is near 15 trillion. That is not 7-10%, but around a third. Bush ran deficits of roughly 300 billion per year. Obama has doubled that.

Look, is a third unfair? Perhaps, if one wants to quibble over nickles and dimes. Bush increased the debt 2.8 trillion to the time he left office. Obama will increase the debt by nearly 5 trillion through 2016. setting aside the 2.9 trillion in debt that Obama and Bush helped create together in 2009, Obama is already well over 2 trillion toward that goal.

It won't do you any good to call me or bc "ignorant" or anything else of the kind. It is, after all you who termed Rachael Maddow "nuanced." Now anyone seeing this is Rachael Maddow is to me possessed of a deep confusion regarding just what the point of value of "intellect" is at all.

[_moksha]

Buffalo fails to realize that the debt magically appeared on Obama's first day in office and had no earlier genesis. Get real and learn some voodoo so you can understand such economic reasoning.

[_EAllusion]

For the record, I referred to Maddow as more nuanced than Ann Coulter, which is so blindingly obvious that anyone taking umbrage at that is discrediting themselves by doing it.

By the way Droopy, cap and trade died in the Senate. And yet you credit it for blowing up the deficit. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo fails to realize that the debt magically appeared on Obama's first day in office and had no earlier genesis. Get real and learn some voodoo so you can understand such economic reasoning.

My mistake! Obama was in charge of the debt during the Reagan and Bush I & II years!

[_cambreckenridge]

Obama's February 2011 deficit of $223 billion:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/7/government-posts-biggest-monthly-deficit-ever/

Bush's entire 2007 deficit of $161 billion:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/10/05/deficit-for-fiscal-2007-slides/

Wouldn't Obama's deficit HAVE to be larger than Bush's even if Obama only spent one dollar since he started with the last amount of the Bush deficit?

Unless Obama either spent nothing new or slashed as much as he added (impossible without co-action with Congress)

(I became suspicious in 2001 when Dick Cheney criticized whatever 'progress' the Clinton administration made on the national debt & the deficit & then said that having no debt was not a good thing, and also said, regarding gas guzzling vehicles, that they are part of our lifestyle & we have a right to our lifestyle.

I don't see it as a Republican/Democrat - Conserv/Liberal thing. It's a "follow the money" thing. Who benefits from a big trade deficit, a huge national debt, (add war, also)? It's a clear track leading to the beneficiaries. (and I'm not one of 'em!)

[_The Nehor]

Wouldn't Obama's deficit HAVE to be larger than Bush's even if Obama only spent one dollar since he started with the last amount of the Bush deficit?

No, I think you're confusing debt and deficit. Now if you mean Obama spends $1 more then Bush TOTAL over a year then yes.

Unless Obama either spent nothing new or slashed as much as he added (impossible without co-action with Congress)

Since the House has the power over the purse Republicans have to either 'put up or shut up' now.

(I became suspicious in 2001 when Dick Cheney criticized whatever 'progress' the Clinton administration made on the national debt & the deficit & then said that having no debt was not a good thing, and also said, regarding gas guzzling vehicles, that they are part of our lifestyle & we have a right to our lifestyle.

There are actually some sound economic reasons to have some debt. The comment was irresponsible because the debt is much larger then necessary.

I don't see it as a Republican/Democrat - Conserv/Liberal thing. It's a "follow the money" thing. Who benefits from a big trade deficit, a huge national debt, (add war, also)? It's a clear track leading to the beneficiaries. (and I'm not one of 'em!)

I really think it's more complex then that. Most people in government agree the debt is too high. The problem is that it's very very hard to make actual cuts. Doing that you end jobs, cut off support systems, weaken national defense, etc.

They're all a hard sell.

[_EAllusion]

Our defense spending is absurd, with a healthy chunk going to defense related projects that likely aren't going to be all that helpful in the event they actually need to be brought to bear. They get greenlighted anyway as what amounts to a defense industry welfare. That's what Eisenhower warned about many years ago but did nothing to curb.

We could easily halve our defense spending and still have by far the world's most powerful military on top of our impregnable nuclear missile defenses. We currently operate more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Decommissioning a few isn't the end of the world.

Raise the retirement age a few years on entitlements and add in means testing and you've impacted the deficit far more than anything you could ever realistically do with the discretionary piece of the pie. Sure, I'd love to see farm subsidies cut off as much as the next guy - Ok much more - but the real money is in pools that get exempted from budget talks when they absolutely have to be on the table.

[_Droopy]

For the record, I referred to Maddow as more nuanced than Ann Coulter, which is so blindingly obvious that anyone taking umbrage at that is discrediting themselves by doing it.

By the way Droopy, cap and trade died in the Senate. And yet you credit it for blowing up the deficit. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

But of course, that would have ballooned it even farther, and it was part of the original Obama program. The 15 trillion at which we stand now over the next ten years is less Cap and Tax. Obama's 2012 budget projects running 1.6 trillion budget deficits next year, Borrowing 43 cents of each dollar the state spends, and doubling that's (doubling E, not GWBs more modest but still outrageous recklessness) the national debt over pre-recession levels.

We are looking at 15.7 trillion (and probably more like 18) by 2020.

Fine, don't lay it all at the feet of Obama. Nobody is. But Obama and the virtual one party rule government he had his first two years in office have used the existing spending apparatus of the state (much of which they have created) to glut themselves in a mad orgy of runaway spending, taxation, and the attempt to grow the economy through inflation and debt.

We are moving toward a comeuppance with history and economics.