It’s Official: Obama Has Now Borrowed $3 Trillion Monday, October 18, 2010 By Terence P. Jeffrey
It's official: The Obama administration has now borrowed $3 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. It took from 1776, when the United States became an independent country, until 1990, the year after the Berlin Wall fell signaling victory in the Cold War, for the federal government to accumulate a total of $3 trillion in debt, according to the Treasury Department. It only took from Jan. 20, 2009, the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated, until Oct. 15, 2010, for the Obama administration to add $3 trillion to the federal debt. The overall debt of the federal government, according to the Treasury Department, is now $13.666 trillion. Each business day, in the afternoon, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt publishes the exact amount—to the penny--of total federal debt as of the close of the previous business day. At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the bureau, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Oct. 15, 2010, the federal government borrowed an additional $58,979,549,154.06, bringing the total federal debt at the close of Friday’s business day to $13,665,926,643,255.96—an increase of $3,039,049,594,342.88 since President Obama’s inauguration. As calculated by the Bureau of the Public Debt, the total federal debt includes two major components: debt held by the public, which includes publicly traded securities such as Treasury bonds, and intragovernmental debt, which is money the government borrows from theoretically dedicated funds within the government itself, such as the Social Security trust fund. The overwhelming majority of the $3.039 trillion increase in the debt under President Obama has come in the form of debt held by the public as opposed to intragovernmental debt. Debt held by the public has increased $2.75196 trillion since Obama was inaugurated, according to the Bureau of Public Debt, while intragovernmnetal debt has increased 287.0889 billion.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Debt held by the public has increased $2.75196 trillion since Obama was inaugurated
when did Obama submit his first budget, and wehn was it passed, adn when did it go into effect?
"It's Official"? LOL... it's bullcrap..
you have to back this one up too Cash (i'm still waitng on the Pelosi goons arresting journalists)
show me when Obama's first budget was submitted...
i think you'll be a little surprised to find that Bush's budget didn't end until 9 months after Obama was sworn in.. that's the way it works...
add on top of that how much of that deficit is from Bush bailouts (that's right Bush did them) tax cuts from Bush, and how much is the wars? you'll find that Obam is responsible for way less than a trillion of it...
then? you have to consider how much of the bailout money will be paid back...
before you begin whining again about me mentioning Bush? i just want to point out that if you want to play the politics game with honesty (you do don't you??) ? it takes more than chanting a few slogans... Obama has overspent, but not 3 thrillion worth..
the last issue is how much money the Federal govt did not collect due to the economic slowdown... it's actaully almost a trillion$-- go figure that....
the Heritage Foundation is hardly a "liberal group" (in fact it's very rightwing...
.Recession Pushes Current Tax Receipts Below Historical Average
The overall tax burden on Americans is measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). Since World War II, tax receipts have averaged around 18 percent of GDP. Due mainly to the recession, tax receipts have fallen slightly but are expected to surpass historical levels soon.
you'll note that under Obama? we paid less in taxes as apercentage of what we made that's proven with the (right wingers) GDP chart.. then add to that loss of GDP (and ht eother things i mentioned) and you get the main reason why our deficits have skyrocketed.
all in all? i say vote 'em all out every few years...
voting for the wrong reason is not a good thing tho... the politicians tend to assume the voters are stupid for some strange reason... maybe they are right.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, there was not an arrest at the pelosi event, but the staging was similar. I was watching rachel maddow tonight and she mentioned that whole arrest was staged.
So glass, are you saying that article that was published is wrong?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Glass, there was not an arrest at the pelosi event, but the staging was similar. I was watching rachel maddow tonight and she mentioned that whole arrest was staged.
So glass, are you saying that article that was published is wrong?
yes, i am saying that Bush spent the first years worth of Obama's deficit. and Obama will spend the first year of deficit for the next president. So it's not true that Obama borrowed as much money as the article says he did. futherrmore? Nobody but ultra-lefties want to stoip spending on the wars, so that's etched in stone until they are done...
That article is propaganda... and when your GOP's get in? nothing will change because they won;t cut budgets either or the economy will tip over..
and if they do? then it will just tip over, but they won't...
remember the crash of 29 preceded the full scale depression by three years... i've told you this several time now... i'm not saying it cuz i like it...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Glass, there was not an arrest at the pelosi event, but the staging was similar. I was watching rachel maddow tonight and she mentioned that whole arrest was staged.
So glass, are you saying that article that was published is wrong?
show me what happened at the Pelosi event...
i don't watch Maddow, i'm reading the Alaskan news accounts from Alaska, and that guy was in cuffs, are you saying the security team didn't work for Miller???
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i notice you failed link the article too, no wonder it's such balatant propaganda---
CNS news dot com? LOL the "right news" right now? these guys are just like the Völkischer Beobachter
you can look that up too...
I did not fail to link the article, the link is the first thing in the post!! I guess I should email CNS and let them know they are misleading people.
[ October 19, 2010, 09:05: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's official: The Obama administration has now borrowed $3 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department."
ready for round 2 (or whatever round we're in )of the foreclosures to start too. great timing. Need to find 2 dollars just to make one now too.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes why don't you email them and point out what i told you? They cannot honestly refute it either...
because they explain it by simply recording the debt on inaguration day and then checking it agian oct 15th.
anybody who understands how the Govt works knows that you cannot blame Obama for the budget that was in place when he took office...
he writes and submits the new budget and it gets voted on and takes effect in the next Fiscal Year...
this is along the lines of blaming Obama for the bailouts too..
Bush did the bailouts. he knew that if he didn't? he would be blamed for a the Second Great Depression. He asked for the money to be budgeted and it was... That got added to Obama's deficit (as defined by the propagnada article) too because it came in the budget in Obamas first year of office.. get what ima'splaining now?
NOW? as boodog just pointed out?
we are still likely to have one but the conservatives will blame it on Obama.. even tho the damage is from 2004 to 2007....
and i will repeat again as many times as i have to that it took three years for the Great Depression to take hold.
so you've had plenty of time to get ready for it. Are you ready for it?
we had two choices all along, (as i've been saying all along) first choice is to use Govt moeny as needed to drag teh economy along by the hair till it can recover...
the second was to do nothing... and the GOP is the Do Nothing Party now.. so if they continue to act the way they have talked? and do nothing? we get The Great DepressionII.
this isn't a football game where cheering makes a differnce. there is no "twelth man"...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
here are some specifics on how Obama gets "tagged" with Bush spending:
Dec 19, 2008 (note that the the Fiscal year of 2009 began in Oct of 2008)Bush aproved loans of 17 billion to GM and Chryslre... The funds came from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was enacted Oct 3 2008, now, this is very important:
The process of creating the budget for the United States Government is known as the budget process. The framework used by Congress to formulate the budget was established by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921[1], the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974[2], and by other budget legislation.
The federal government's fiscal year currently begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year. The fiscal year corresponds to the calendar year in which it ends; thus, fiscal year 2009 would begin on October 1, 2008 and end September 30, 2009. The federal fiscal year's starting date was shifted from July 1 to October 1 in 1976. The period between the end of FY1976 and the start of FY1977 was called the Transition Quarter. An earlier shift in the U.S. government's fiscal year was made in the 1850s.
now before you accuse me of "blaming Bush" for everything again?
i am simply trying to clarify how stupid the political rhetoric has become...
Obama has spent too much money, i've said that, many times in the past, that he MUST go back to Bush's (overspending) levels of 2007 as fast as he can, and if he doesn't? He deserves the boot too...
my problem with all the jive-talking is that people are losing sight of the truth faster every day.
only a few ultra-lefties expect Obama to cut Defense spending...
His stimulus package was only effective as any Govt stimulus ever is which is not very effective. BUT it most certainly did not fail, because we got back to positive GDP, and people who claim it did fail are actually asking that he spent more faster....
now? alot of people are out of work and can't find any. The govt should not be in the business of giving ANYBODY tax breaks to create jobs...
once you give any tax break? you cannot "take it back" without being accused of raising taxes... and we still endup with big deficits..
i have (white)neighbors beggin' me to hire to them and i cannot/willnot.. I'm not an employer or an employee. I'm an independant operator, i don't even like commission work. My policy is that i make what i make and if people like it? They buy it. If they don't? Then i go make soemthing else. I don't want or take grant money except on the rare occasions i recieve a prize in a competition, that money always comes from some grant public or private...
cash, i am beyond caring who gets elected this year. I just hope that you have been paying attention to teh possible futures we have here. One is a lost decade:
does this sound familiar?
The Lost Decade (失われた10年, Ushinawareta Jūnen is the time after the Japanese asset price bubble's collapse within the Japanese economy, which occurred gradually rather than catastrophically. It consists of the years 1991 to 2000.
The strong economic growth of the 1980s ended abruptly at the start of the 1990s. In the late 1980s, abnormalities within the Japanese economic system had fueled a massive wave of speculation by Japanese companies, banks and securities companies. A combination of exceptionally high land values and exceptionally low interest rates briefly led to a position in which credit was both easily available and extremely cheap. This led to massive borrowing, the proceeds of which were invested mostly in domestic and foreign stocks and securities.
history is repeating itself over and over all the time.. study history and the future comes fairly clear.. there's nothing magical about predicting human behaviour...
the other option is a new Great Depression... One where people have lost connection with the land almost entirely. In the 30's? many people did just fine as far as eating goes cuz they still gardened and canned and raised chickens and rabbits..
we don't do any of that anymore... raisng chickens and rabbits was common before referigeration became available to even the poorest people.. today? 97% of US people would not even know what to do with a live chicken or rabbit if they were starving to death....
Many of US may end up hiring illegals to live with US in our houses, not to clean the dishes but to show US how to survive if things go the way the GOP TParty people say they want it to go...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
prolly see the Govt cuts come in towards mid/end of next year, and then they won't be seen until the next pres is in so they can blame it all on the republicans.... again.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!? Posts: 7800 | From: Virginia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
that's quite possible, the Dems don't want the blame anymore than the GOP...
we'll have to see how much power they collect in Nov. I'm not convinced they will win as amny seats as FOX news has been caliming, but i do expect tehm to win th eHouse by a couple seat.. The Senate? I think it stays Dem, and then i see Obama losing in '12..
but it's too far out from '12 to be sure he will lose, even if the GOP's don't win the Senate.
It will also depend on who he runs against, and i am sure he wants to run against Palin
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: that's quite possible, the Dems don't want the blame anymore than the GOP...
we'll have to see how much power they collect in Nov. I'm not convinced they will win as amny seats as FOX news has been caliming, but i do expect tehm to win th eHouse by a couple seat.. The Senate? I think it stays Dem, and then i see Obama losing in '12..
but it's too far out from '12 to be sure he will lose, even if the GOP's don't win the Senate.
It will also depend on who he runs against, and i am sure he wants to run against Palin
Glass I have to ask you, what do you think about NAFTA that was pushed so hard by the Clintons. Do you think that it helped? I do not. I think we have talked about it before, but I just did a short paper on Green Giant and how they moved a facility years back to Mexico because basically the hourly wage in America was the daily wage in Mexico. Bill Clinton pumped all this trade with China and Mexico saying they would buy our goods and all the suckers believed it not knowing that those countries couldnt afford American goods and now all the jobs are in China and a lot of them are in Mexico or moving there.
Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass I have to ask you, what do you think about NAFTA that was pushed so hard by the Clintons.
Cash, i am really beginning to wonder about you.
i have pointed out to you more than once that NAFTA was written by Bush the First and Clinton signed Bush's agreement. Idunno what sources you are using for your papers, but NAFTA was daddy Bush's baby.... He went and negotiated it and signed the treaty, Clinton merely ratified it after it went thru the Congress.
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, and with much consideration and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2]
i dunno why you are so intent upon distorting reality...
as to Chinese trade? Bill Clinton did grant China permanent most favored nation stauts, which i totally disagreed with (but who am i ?)
however, Newt Gingrich supported him on it...
Most Favored Nation (MFN) status was first granted to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1979 and was been renewed on a yearly basis ever after until Clinton made it permanaent.
Daddy Bush gave MFN status to China every year including the year of the Tienanman Square massacre..
Clinton in his presidential campaign had sharply attacked Bush for extending trade privileges to China in the years following the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, accusing him of "coddling criminals."
But Clinton said Thursday he has had a change of heart. "Let me ask you the same question I have asked myself," he said. "Will we do more to advance the cause of human rights if China is isolated."
Then Clinton followed him by doing the same, and making it permanet....
BOTH of the SOB's sold out and so did most of the Congress...
they called it "constructive engagement"...
your GOP's are just as corrupt as the Dems.
And it only took Clinton a couple of years after leaving office to "make" (LOL) 100 million dollars, he was well rewarded for selling US down the river.
Daddy Bush was also US Envoy to China in 1975 go figure that one... He went there and set up all kinds of deals...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)of the foreclosures to start too. great timing. Need to find 2 dollars just to make one now too.
