RSSGood Grief, National Debt over $4,000,000,000 … How Did Obama Used to Feel about Debt Ceiling?
UNREAL, the National Debt has now passed the $14 trillion mark for the first time ever. In just 7 months, the National Debt as increased from $13 trillion on June 1, 2010 to $14 trillion on Dec. 31. Good grief. And as Weasel Zippers preemptively respond to Obama and his Democrat minions, No, this isn’t Bush’s fault.
The latest posting today of the National Debt shows it has topped $14 trillion for the first time.
The U.S. Treasury website today reported that as of last Friday, the last day of 2010, the National Debt stood at $14,025,215,218,708.52.
It took just 7 months for the National Debt to increase from $13 trillion on June 1, 2010 to $14 trillion on Dec. 31. It also means the debt is fast approaching the statutory ceiling $14.294 trillion set by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last February.
The federal government would have to stop borrowing and might even default on its obligations if Congress fails to increase the Debt Ceiling before the limit is reached.
Some Republicans in the new Congress have said they’ll seek to block an increase in the Debt Ceiling unless a plan is in place to significantly reduce federal spending and unfunded government liabilities on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee warned yesterday.
However, as reported at the NRO President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity.” Hmm, intertingly enough that’s not the position the Obama had in the past.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. (Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling)
Funny how Obama does a 180 when he is in power.
Posted January 4, 2011 by Scared Monkeys Barack Obama, Budget Deficits, Hypocrisy, National Debt, Obamanation, Out of Control Spending, President George W. Bush, Tax & Spend Liberals, We the People, WTF | 18 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
18 Responses to “Good Grief, National Debt over $4,000,000,000 … How Did Obama Used to Feel about Debt Ceiling?”
Leave a Reply
The budgets submitted by Bush led to an increase in the debt by $6.1 trillion. It seems that Bush had some hand in the debt total.
BTW, we will default on our obligations to pay the interest on our debt if the ceiling is not extended.
Its always W’s fault. When will Obama ever take credit for any thing that he has done? You folks on the LEFT need to wake up and just admit it.
No one says that Bush & GOP did not spend, that is what got them all fired.
However, Obama comes in with a leak in the boat and he smashes an even bigger hole with an axe.
Where is the LEFT on Obama’s past votes against the debt ceiling. Oh thats right, when he was being an obstructionist bastard senato that was ok, now that he is a President its different.
Um #1, why would we have not been defaulting on our obligations when Obama voted against debt ceiling in the past?
R
even when obama is a blatant idiot, his worshippers can see no wrong in him. this is due to weak minds that have never been educated past their job in a chicken plant.
obama has a gambling problem !!!
For crap sake! Every time a fault of Obama’s is pointed out, some kid comes back with “but Bush…….”. Are you aware that it is CONGRESS that passes budgets? Are you aware that Bush had a DEMOCRAT congress passing those budgets the last couple of years? Are you remembering 9/11/2000 that added huge unexpected costs to Government which had nothing to do with whom was President?
I’m not saying that Bush didn’t run deficits or that his financial policies were always good – but maybe a picture of deficits for 20 years might help you.
#2
“No, this isn’t Bush’s fault.” vs. “No one says that Bush & GOP did not spend“.
I hope you can see how both of these can’t be true. I really can’t comment on your other statements until we resolve the question of the Bush deficit.
BTW, at no point did I comment on whether or not “Its always W’s fault“, as you claim.
#3
I’m only answering because you asked a question.
I know you already know the answer to your question, however, I’m not sure the political nature it entails is clearly presented.
The idea that GOP would want to hold up the debt extension “unless a plan is in place to significantly reduce federal spending and unfunded government liabilities on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare” is mixing two separate ideas and two separate funding mechanisms.
The debt has absolutely nothing to do with these two programs, which have a separate funding source. SS will be fully solvent for at least the next 15-25 years as it is constituted today. Even then, it is projected to be able to pay out near a 70% level of normal payments, which is not mentioned often enough. There is no need to use one to “fix” the other. That said, it would be good to look at an SS fix sooner rather than later.
The Obama Deficit Commission got this wrong too, by looking at SS changes to fix the budget deficit problems. It’s all bait and switch.
Yeah Greg because you are so versed in our national debt that we should all bow down and take your LIBERAL LEANING as gospel.
You know jack squat!
BTW…Bush increased the debt by $4.6T not the made up in fantasy land 6.1T you came up with….
This isn’t peanuts….
And Gregory…you are trying to compare 8 years of what it only took Obama to do in 2!
Liberals are such idiots!
Why should it be mentioned that someone is going to get screwed out of 30% of what they put into the system? That’s good news? LOL.. only to a libtard.
Wanna bet that SS does not remain solvent in the next 15-20 years?
Wanna bet that Medicare will be gone too?
Keep using slanted information from the Obama WH as numbers that are gospel.
My Dad just turned 65 and he’s not even getting close to what his actual payment should be so stop the spin machine dude!
#10,
Scott-
So if I know “jack squat“, please explain where my description of Deficit and SS funding is incorrect. Be my guest. As anyone can tell, “jack squat” isn’t much of an explanation for anything.
While you’re at it, please explain how these two systems, and an explanation of them, is liberal or conservative.
I expect a good answer, as you are not one who is only full of hot air. Thanks in advance.
BTW, I never tried to compare anyone in my comments. My only mention of Obama is the name of the Deficit Commission (or is that Debt Commission?).
____________
SM: Of course Greg, you know everything. I used to think it was the wise owl that knew how many licks it took to get the the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, really it was you.
R
SM (#12),
I guess it would be foolish to wait for Scott himself to back up his vacuous claims with anything beyond “you libtard“. That guy breaks me up!
As it is, my request for an explanation of what I’ve got wrong still stands. Oft posted personal comments disguised as meaningful discussion may make some folks feel secure in their footies, but I don’t think such an argument is convincing.
To be honest, I don’t know why I’m still surprised when hot air seems to permeate so many comments, especially when such posters claim they are stating facts.
______________
SM: How about some cheese with that whine.
R
Greg…where are your FACTS? You have not posted one fact; except for your plagarising someone else’s words. These are left leaning views of what you claim as FACT.
You CAN NOT even answer you own stupid question.
I don’t need to answer your question because what you stated is NOT fact. Back it up b*tch boy?
Let’s see..you posted as fact, Bush’s addition to the debt as 6.1T when that is WRONG….wikipedia has it at 4.6T…it’s now at 14T…do the math idiot boy. You compare the alleged damage of Bush in 8 years; yet you can’t explain the NUCLEAR damage Obama has done in just two.
BTW…in case you haven’t noticed…nobody cares what you think is convincing or not…
Not replying…because I have a life, a family, small children…unlike your dreadful life you lead.
Not replying…because left leaning views and stating fiction with just a mere number discredits anything you have to say.
Bush should’ve NEVER ok’d that first TARP Deal…so yeah he had a hand in getting the bailout ball started. I wanted to believe Bush was just punch drunk by the time he left office in order to agree to TARP but now i’m not so sure.
Scott,
You deserve an answer to your request for facts. Here is what I can offer (sorry for the slight length increase).
——–
RE: The budgets submitted by Bush led to an increase in the debt by $6.1 trillion.
Bush submitted budgets for the following fiscal years (below; each running from Oct 1 – Sept 30). The deficit totals shown here are the year-to-year differences from end-of-year debt as shown on the Treasury Direct site.
2002 $ 420,772,553,397
2003 $ 554,995,097,146
2004 $ 595,821,633,587
2005 $ 553,656,965,393
2006 $ 574,264,237,492
2007 $ 500,679,473,047
2008 $1,017,071,524,650
2009 $1,885,104,106,599
—– ——————
total $6,102,365,591,312
————
RE: Debt/deficit vs. Soc Sec – are they different???
The trust funds are “off-budget” and treated separately in certain ways from other Federal spending, and other trust funds of the Federal Government. From the U.S. Code:
EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY FROM ALL BUDGETS Pub. L. 101-508, title XIII, Sec. 13301(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104Stat. 1388-623, provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of – (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
————
RE: future of Soc Sec fund & ability to pay benefits
By 2037, the Trust Fund is expected to be officially exhausted, meaning that only the ongoing payroll tax collections thereafter will be available to fund the program.[5] There are certain key implications to understand under current law, if no reforms are implemented:
Payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084.
————
In answer to your most recent posts, apart from the facts request:
You talk a loud, rude game, but you don’t seem to really have anything meaningful to add that one could appreciate. I get that name calling lights your fire; in truth I’m not sure you do such a good job, and in the end, it just seems to be boring.
You try to claim facts yourself, a good trait, but without any traceable references, it is hard to tell if the numbers mean anything. BTW, I’m glad you held me accountable.
I’ll close with your last comments:
“Not replying…because I have a life, a family, small children…unlike your dreadful life you lead.
Not replying…because left leaning views and stating fiction with just a mere number discredits anything you have to say.”
My fact for you on these comments it this: it is plainly clear that you are, in fact, replying. Your posts speak for themselves. You’re name and responses are plainly visible on many topics. I will grant that your replies are not, for the most part, responding to the substance of prior comments. I know there is a chance that these facts may, or may not, cause you to reply, perhaps even with meaningful substance. The one thing that is clear, is that you would be hard pressed to continue to claim that this post discredits what I have to say, without simultaneously telling us a little more about you.
no scott just can’t handle anything that doesn’t fit his little utopia.
and debating in his reality consists of swearing and name calling.