Topic: The Cost of Obama | |
---|---|
President Obama’s fourth budget has now been released, which allows for a relatively full accounting of deficit spending during his four years in office.
The picture isn’t pretty, but it is revealing. According to the White House’s own figures (see table S-1 here for 2011 to 2013, and table S-1 here for 2010), the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013. In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office’s figure) that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. Moreover, he shouldn’t get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally. Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00. The previous record for most deficit spending during a presidency was set by President George W. Bush (see table 1.3 in the White House’s Historic Tables). During Bush’s 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It’s also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much. ![]() http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth
Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, |
|
|
|
President Obama’s fourth budget has now been released, which allows for a relatively full accounting of deficit spending during his four years in office. The picture isn’t pretty, but it is revealing. According to the White House’s own figures (see table S-1 here for 2011 to 2013, and table S-1 here for 2010), the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013. In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office’s figure) that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. Moreover, he shouldn’t get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally. Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00. The previous record for most deficit spending during a presidency was set by President George W. Bush (see table 1.3 in the White House’s Historic Tables). During Bush’s 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It’s also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much. ![]() http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html According to my calculations. I think their off by .49 cents, or so. ![]() |
|
|
|
President Obama’s fourth budget has now been released, which allows for a relatively full accounting of deficit spending during his four years in office. The picture isn’t pretty, but it is revealing. According to the White House’s own figures (see table S-1 here for 2011 to 2013, and table S-1 here for 2010), the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013. In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office’s figure) that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. Moreover, he shouldn’t get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally. Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00. The previous record for most deficit spending during a presidency was set by President George W. Bush (see table 1.3 in the White House’s Historic Tables). During Bush’s 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It’s also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much. ![]() http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html According to my calculations. I think their off by .49 cents, or so. ![]() haaa, your calculations are as good as any other non financial expert ,,,,, |
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 05/28/12 01:20 PM
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, They should have failed and the bad assets liquidated....BUT NO..... bilk the American taxpayer into covering the bad investments creating a recession that has lasted for years, and paying employee bonuses in the MILLIONS of dollars for a job well done!! Then filling your cabinet with the very people who caused it , to fix it! That's one way to avoid prosecution! |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though oh, i see...it doesn't matter how much they spend, but when they spend it... thanks for clearing that up for me... ![]() |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though oh, i see...it doesn't matter how much they spend, but when they spend it... thanks for clearing that up for me... ![]() let me break it down If mom and dad start with 40000 debt and then mom increases the debt to 50000 within the year she is given budget authority and dad increases debt to 60000 within the next year they have A) both spent the same in RAW numbers B) spent at different PACES ( dad increasing debt by 20% in a year, and mom increasing it by 25% in that year) and that would be true even if part of that spending included 2000 dad spent on a car and 2000 mom spent on a fur and if you removed those two expenses on both sides, the PACE would still show that Dad spent at a slower rate,,,, |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though oh, i see...it doesn't matter how much they spend, but when they spend it... thanks for clearing that up for me... ![]() let me break it down If mom and dad start with 40000 debt and then mom increases the debt to 50000 within the year she is given budget authority and dad increases debt to 60000 within the next year they have A) both spent the same in RAW numbers B) spent at different PACES ( dad increasing debt by 20% in a year, and mom increasing it by 25% in that year) and that would be true even if part of that spending included 2000 dad spent on a car and 2000 mom spent on a fur and if you removed those two expenses on both sides, the PACE would still show that Dad spent at a slower rate,,,, i see what your saying, but what is the point? obama spent the same amount at a slower pace? thank you, but who cares? we need less spending, not spending in more or less time... |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though oh, i see...it doesn't matter how much they spend, but when they spend it... thanks for clearing that up for me... ![]() let me break it down If mom and dad start with 40000 debt and then mom increases the debt to 50000 within the year she is given budget authority and dad increases debt to 60000 within the next year they have A) both spent the same in RAW numbers B) spent at different PACES ( dad increasing debt by 20% in a year, and mom increasing it by 25% in that year) and that would be true even if part of that spending included 2000 dad spent on a car and 2000 mom spent on a fur and if you removed those two expenses on both sides, the PACE would still show that Dad spent at a slower rate,,,, i see what your saying, but what is the point? obama spent the same amount at a slower pace? thank you, but who cares? we need less spending, not spending in more or less time... the point is that the peace is about the PACE of spending,, and the allegation that this administration has 'splurged' or been in some kind of excess above the previous,,,, |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though oh, i see...it doesn't matter how much they spend, but when they spend it... thanks for clearing that up for me... ![]() let me break it down If mom and dad start with 40000 debt and then mom increases the debt to 50000 within the year she is given budget authority and dad increases debt to 60000 within the next year they have A) both spent the same in RAW numbers B) spent at different PACES ( dad increasing debt by 20% in a year, and mom increasing it by 25% in that year) and that would be true even if part of that spending included 2000 dad spent on a car and 2000 mom spent on a fur and if you removed those two expenses on both sides, the PACE would still show that Dad spent at a slower rate,,,, i see what your saying, but what is the point? obama spent the same amount at a slower pace? thank you, but who cares? we need less spending, not spending in more or less time... the point is that the peace is about the PACE of spending,, and the allegation that this administration has 'splurged' or been in some kind of excess above the previous,,,, ALL LEADING US DOWN THE PATH TO A DEPRESSION AND HYPER INFLATION! We need a Ron Paul to cut up the peoples credit card, apply the brakes to the runaway DC train wreck about to happen, and restore some sanity to gov't! |
|
|
|
All I know is we are heading in the same direction as Greece if we don't get it under control it will control us.
They said at this pace by 2020 we would be spending 1 trillion a year on interest payments alone (Fareed Zakaria guest on GPS, 2 economists). |
|
|
|
TARP bailed out banks and financial institutions,,,700 billion dollars worth Recovery act was to help the ECONOMY..slightly over 700 billion dollars worth even removing those from the equaions, the pace would still be slower,,,keeping them in,, doesnt add significantly to either side one way or the other since they are fairly equal amounts,,, huh, and you were arguing with me in the other post when i said their spending was somewhat equal... yes, I was disagreeing that their spending PACE was not equal this ONE portion of their spending was similar though oh, i see...it doesn't matter how much they spend, but when they spend it... thanks for clearing that up for me... ![]() let me break it down If mom and dad start with 40000 debt and then mom increases the debt to 50000 within the year she is given budget authority and dad increases debt to 60000 within the next year they have A) both spent the same in RAW numbers B) spent at different PACES ( dad increasing debt by 20% in a year, and mom increasing it by 25% in that year) and that would be true even if part of that spending included 2000 dad spent on a car and 2000 mom spent on a fur and if you removed those two expenses on both sides, the PACE would still show that Dad spent at a slower rate,,,, i see what your saying, but what is the point? obama spent the same amount at a slower pace? thank you, but who cares? we need less spending, not spending in more or less time... the point is that the peace is about the PACE of spending,, and the allegation that this administration has 'splurged' or been in some kind of excess above the previous,,,, ALL LEADING US DOWN THE PATH TO A DEPRESSION AND HYPER INFLATION! We need a Ron Paul to cut up the peoples credit card, apply the brakes to the runaway DC train wreck about to happen, and restore some sanity to gov't! Sojorn, I believe that you are right. |
|
|