The Obama Debt Tracker: Nine Trillion dollars of national debt in less than 8 years

[Spike]

Since Barack Hussein Obama got into office a little less than eight years ago, the democrats have increased the total combined National Debt by more than $9 trillion:

Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding

01/20/2009 - 6,307,310,739,681.66 - 4,319,566,309,231.42 - 10,626,877,048,913.08
10/03/2016 - 14,169,562,468,883.59 - 5,473,387,273,677.92 - 19,642,949,742,561.51

http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/s...tYear=2009&endMonth=10&endDay=04&endYear=2016

----------------------------------

Well there's your problem, Democrats


And what did all your money get you, taxpayers?

ISIS and BLM

 

[Coach]

Since Barack Hussein Obama got into office a little less than eight years ago, the democrats have increased the total combined National Debt by more than $9 trillion:

Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding

01/20/2009 - 6,307,310,739,681.66 - 4,319,566,309,231.42 - 10,626,877,048,913.08
10/03/2016 - 14,169,562,468,883.59 - 5,473,387,273,677.92 - 19,642,949,742,561.51

http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/s...tYear=2009&endMonth=10&endDay=04&endYear=2016

----------------------------------

Well there's your problem, Democrats


And what did all your money get you, taxpayers?

ISIS and BLM

And with only 1.45 Trillion in Printed US dollars, Obama has done more damage than any jihad terrorist to date. We do NOT have enough money to pay for this debt, unless taxes go way up for years.

 

[ark steel]

Clearly, you have forgotten, BOOOOSH.

 

[21STEELERS21]

Since 2010 we have had a Republican Congress. What is their role in the budget process?
Also debt doesn't occur in a vacuum. Most of Regan's tax policies are still in place today.
Bush took surpluses and quickly turned them into deficits. Most of his policies are still in place.

We've had a structural deficit since Regan. If Congress tries to balance the budget, we would send the economy
toward depression. They used the Social Security surpluses to give the wealthy tax cuts.

 

[Steeltime]

Since 2010 we have had a Republican Congress. What is their role in the budget process?
Also debt doesn't occur in a vacuum. Most of Regan's tax policies are still in place today.

Not a valid argument. Reagan's tax cuts generated massive economic growth, that continued into the Clinton years.

Clinton's tax increases combined with the massive economic growth generated by the Reagan tax cuts effectively eviscerated the deficits.

The problem we have now is that the Democrat economic policies have led to economic growth below 2%. If the economy was growing at 3.5% or more per year, we would not have a deficit.

The cure is greater economic growth, not more taxes. I say that because the top marginal rate has gone from 28% to 35% to 39.2%. Further increases will once again trigger little to no tax revenues as we get back to the Laffer effect.

They used the Social Security surpluses to give the wealthy tax cuts.

No, Congress used social security surpluses for a trillions of dollars of government spending. The wealthy pay more than ever as part of the tax revenues we generate:

 

[Confluence]

CBO must be some right wing conspiracy theory group with TRUMPed up numbers

 

[Steeltime]

 

[DBS1970]

Clearly 21Steelers21 doesn't know what causes deficits. The national government(we no longer have a federal system) takes in $2.8T in taxes and spends $3.5T. The problem is our masters in Mordor on the Potomac are spending $700,000,000,000 a year more than they are taking in. We have a spending problem not a low tax problem.

 

[Steelr4evr]

The only solution is bigger government and more promised free **** like college...sarcasm That will sure bring down the deficit . How in the hell did the country get so damn ignorant. This next generation is clueless. Nothing short of huge tax cuts with incentives to invest here in this country is going to work. We've spent the last 8 years letting the world **** us because we have an American hating douche as president. Time to get back to being the ******,not the fuckee.

The government needs some MAJOR reductions in waste and horseshit departments like the department of homeland security need to be dissolved. I'd really like to see it. It's just grown too big for our own good. It's just a middle class back breaking money sucking black hole.

 

[Stryker]

It would be much better if the government controlled currency. Then we, the taxpayers, wouldn't have to pay the interest on the $9T taken out...

 

[deljzc]

Every time I listen to Clinton talk about issues her answer to "solve" the problem is more government spending. Every. *******. Issue.

That is the #1 issue I have in this election. We can not sustain yearly deficits of $600-700 Billion dollars. And I don't believe for one second her economic plan and increased taxes will improve the economic growth past 2% (and might even hurt it).

Clinton, just like Bernie's failed plan, will be to spend FIRST, then expect the economy to grow and catch up, which never happens. And when the economy doesn't grown and tax revenue isn't as they plan do they cut spending in response? Not a chance. They deficit spend and let future generations worry about it.

The real problem with the national debt is what the FED has been doing.

The Fed has purposely lowered the interest rate so we pay LESS on the debt. If you look at historical figures, during Bush's tenure he paid around 4.5% interest on debt and about $250B in interest each year.

Even with all the deficit spending Obama has done, we are still paying around $250B in interest each year because the Fed helped out and lowered interest rates drastically to about 2.5%. The government sold this to us as helping to "spur" the economy, but what is does is allow the government to borrow money like crazy and then THEY hope to spur the economy by increasing government spending (even if that is an incredibly inefficient way to spur economic growth).

Obama has left an untenable situation. If interest rates ever go up to what Bush had to deal with, we would go from $250 billion in interest payments to close to $600-$700 billion in interest payments. Think about that for a second. We only MAKE $3 trillion - $3.2 trillion in revenue. And 1/6th of that would have to go to more interest payments.

Four more years of this might force interest rates to be under 3% forever. Which is NOT healthy for the banking industry because loaning money becomes a terrible way to make money and they instead find riskier (and often illegal ways) to make money and exposes all of us to financial crisis.

That is the unfortunate truth the democrats and Clinton aren't telling people. But people like Tibs and 21Steelers21 don't understand math enough to realize bad spending practices or why interest rates being low is a bad thing.

Oh well.... Clinton is going to win and we'll hit the wall eventually.

 

[Coach]

Every time I listen to Clinton talk about issues her answer to "solve" the problem is more government spending. Every. *******. Issue.

That is the #1 issue I have in this election. We can not sustain yearly deficits of $600-700 Billion dollars. And I don't believe for one second her economic plan and increased taxes will improve the economic growth past 2% (and might even hurt it).

Clinton, just like Bernie's failed plan, will be to spend FIRST, then expect the economy to grow and catch up, which never happens. And when the economy doesn't grown and tax revenue isn't as they plan do they cut spending in response? Not a chance. They deficit spend and let future generations worry about it.

The real problem with the national debt is what the FED has been doing.

The Fed has purposely lowered the interest rate so we pay LESS on the debt. If you look at historical figures, during Bush's tenure he paid around 4.5% interest on debt and about $250B in interest each year.

Even with all the deficit spending Obama has done, we are still paying around $250B in interest each year because the Fed helped out and lowered interest rates drastically to about 2.5%. The government sold this to us as helping to "spur" the economy, but what is does is allow the government to borrow money like crazy and then THEY hope to spur the economy by increasing government spending (even if that is an incredibly inefficient way to spur economic growth).

Obama has left an untenable situation. If interest rates ever go up to what Bush had to deal with, we would go from $250 billion in interest payments to close to $600-$700 billion in interest payments. Think about that for a second. We only MAKE $3 trillion - $3.2 trillion in revenue. And 1/6th of that would have to go to more interest payments.

Four more years of this might force interest rates to be under 3% forever. Which is NOT healthy for the banking industry because loaning money becomes a terrible way to make money and they instead find riskier (and often illegal ways) to make money and exposes all of us to financial crisis.

That is the unfortunate truth the democrats and Clinton aren't telling people. But people like Tibs and 21Steelers21 don't understand math enough to realize bad spending practices or why interest rates being low is a bad thing.

Oh well.... Clinton is going to win and we'll hit the wall eventually.

One of the best all around posters here nails it. I'd give Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, but he needs to get back on track and have the ability to articulate what you are talking about. Him not paying Taxes will hurt far more than any twitter or bombastic thing he said in the past.

A Clinton presidency for 4 or 8 years would be a disaster. I have thought about this. She will stack the courts to the left, using the bench to change laws with the effects lasting for decades. Clinton will increase or risk of terrorism, further bankrupt the nation and the USA on the wrong track.

With the press in bed with the Democrats, a revolution is needed. And revolutions start with the young. The millennials, you know the ones who will be stuck with Democratic presidential politics are our best chance to change the electoral map. Yet our message is seldom aimed here. I'd go all in on it if I were advising Trump, and how the wind is blowing the right way when he hears it because taking good political advice is not Trump's forte.

Simply say when the economy grows to 3% a year ( meaning more people will be paying taxes because more people will be working ) , I'll help you pay back your student debt loans, and spend maybe a few billion less somewhere else.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Since 2010 we have had a Republican Congress. What is their role in the budget process?

They let Bomma have pretty much everything He wanted. This is why Trump won the primary.

 

[DBS1970]

They let Bomma have pretty much everything He wanted. This is why Trump won the primary.

Yep.

Nearly every Republican senator and member of Congress is more worried about being liked by the Neo socialist media and getting invited to the good parties in DC then they are about doing what is right for the country.

 

[IndySteel]

Yep.

Nearly every Republican senator and member of Congress is more worried about being liked by the Neo socialist media and getting invited to the good parties in DC then they are about doing what is right for the country.

They all do pay for play too. That's where they get their real income.

 

[Superman]

One of the best all around posters here nails it. I'd give Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning, but he needs to get back on track and have the ability to articulate what you are talking about. Him not paying Taxes will hurt far more than any twitter or bombastic thing he said in the past.

A Clinton presidency for 4 or 8 years would be a disaster. I have thought about this. She will stack the courts to the left, using the bench to change laws with the effects lasting for decades. Clinton will increase or risk of terrorism, further bankrupt the nation and the USA on the wrong track.

With the press in bed with the Democrats, a revolution is needed. And revolutions start with the young. The millennials, you know the ones who will be stuck with Democratic presidential politics are our best chance to change the electoral map. Yet our message is seldom aimed here. I'd go all in on it if I were advising Trump, and how the wind is blowing the right way when he hears it because taking good political advice is not Trump's forte.

Simply say when the economy grows to 3% a year ( meaning more people will be paying taxes because more people will be working ) , I'll help you pay back your student debt loans, and spend maybe a few billion less somewhere else.

maybe not. If Trump stands up there and says "yes, I paid as little into the system as legally possible, just as everyone does. and while I admit to that, imagine this multiplied by hundreds of thousands. that is what the current tax code is doing - allowing a vast majority to not pay. legally. and this needs to change."

 

[Coach]

maybe not. If Trump stands up there and says "yes, I paid as little into the system as legally possible, just as everyone does. and while I admit to that, imagine this multiplied by hundreds of thousands. that is what the current tax code is doing - allowing a vast majority to not pay. legally. and this needs to change."

Sorry Supe it's likely. if you poll 100 people, at least 35 won't like Trump paying any taxes even if it's legal, and some of them are soft Trump supporters or undecided types. This one issue can cost him 1-4% and he's down 3-4 % in most polls.

To counter Trump MUST call out Clinton takinig 25+ million from Iran and ask where is the quid quo pro, then blst he reply by saying I'm not taking millions from nations who burn our flag and curse at us.

BOOM.

 

[Steelr4evr]

The sum of the democrat plans...Tax tax tax spend spend spend regulate regulate regulate. Grow government!Unless you're one of them no breaks for you.

The social side of them ? Leftist indoctrination in the schools from grade school on. Kill those babies and make the taxpayer foot the bill. Even partial birth ones. Champion deviant sexual behavior. Let any **** into the country no matter what. As long as they vote democrat. Do nothing to secure the border.

Piss all over the 2nd amendment,but have their own armed security.

They get to be above the law while others are subjects to the law and regulations.

Bunch of hypocrites. All of them.

 

[21STEELERS21]

Volker taming inflation had more to do with any 80's and 90's growth than anything Reagan did.
Outside WWII we never really had large deficits until Reagan. Reagan was the starter and creator of
our debt issues.

 

[DBS1970]

Volker taming inflation had more to do with any 80's and 90's growth than anything Reagan did.
Outside WWII we never really had large deficits until Reagan. Reagan was the starter and creator of
our debt issues.

You are forgetting Jimmy Earl the Peanut Farmer starting new cabinet departments and throwing money at minorities to buy votes. And that Reagan had a veto proof democrat majority that spent like drunken sailors in congress to deal with.

 

[Steeltime]

Volker taming inflation had more to do with any 80's and 90's growth than anything Reagan did.

False. Volcker followed Reagan's economic policy, which emphasized controlling inflation through controls on the money supply (M2). Carter used "cheap money" as a way to "stimulate" the economy, and much like Obama's similar effort, the method failed. Reagan was a devotee of Milton Friedman, who had written numerous research articles showing that pumping money into the economy did little to spark economic growth and instead triggered inflation.

Ignoring Reagan's role in basically eliminating inflation as a problem in our economy ignores the fact that Volcker became chairman of the Fed in August of 1979, and Reagan did not become President until January of 1981 - 1 1/2 years later.

If Volcker was the one who solved inflation, why was inflation at 12.9% in August of 1980, a year after he took over, and at 12.5% in October of 1980?

Outside WWII we never really had large deficits until Reagan. Reagan was the starter and creator of our debt issues.

False. Looking at "deficits" is not a legitimate starting point. Look at the deficit as a percentage of GDP. Look at it this way - a $10,000 debt is significant to a guy earning $3,000 per year while a $10,000 debt is basically irrelevant to a guy earning $1,000,000 per year.

Here is a chart showing that the deficit definitely boosted in the early years under Reagan, when the tax cuts and spending on military were in place but not the booming recovery stemming from his economic policies, while the deficit as a percentage of GDP then fell to a very manageable level by 1988, and continued to decline through the economic boom of the 1990's that was a progeny of the Reagan economic explosion.

Obama has not achieved a deficit as a percentage of GDP as low as Reagan achieved in 1988, and the 2009 budget boondoggle with Obama's name on it surpasses every other deficit as percentage of GDP since 1946.

Obama ... the debt king.