It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deficits and the National Debt - Breaking It Down

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Deficits and the National Debt - Breaking It Down

The "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" has released several graphs that make it abundantly clear which policies and which administrations have contributed the greatest to our current national debt and deficits.

What’s Driving Projected Deficits?

(much lengthier and detailed analysis here)


This updated analysis examines the sources of projected deficits from 2009-2019 – a period that spans the beginning of the Obama Administration and extends past the economy’s anticipated recovery — to show the lasting harm done by policies that President Obama inherited. It should provide much-needed and relevant context to the coming budget debates

“Some lawmakers, pundits, and others continue to say that President George W. Bush’s policies did not drive the projected federal deficits of the coming decade — that, instead, it was the policies of President Obama and Congress in 2009 and 2010. But, the fact remains: the economic downturn, President Bush’s tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.”


 

What’s Driving Projected Debt?

Tax Cuts, Wars, Account for Nearly Half of Public Debt by 2019.




The complementary chart, below, shows that the Bush-era tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — including their associated interest costs — account for almost half of the projected public debt in 2019 (measured as a share of the economy) if we continue current policies.


 

Policy Change Under Two Presidents:
Source: The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling
(theatlantic.com)




It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years than during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.)


 

How did the deficit increase to the point it is now?



Source: How Trillion-Dollar Deficits Were Created

To understand the looming deficits, The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office projections of the budget surplus or deficit for the years 2009-12, President Obama’s current term. The budget office has been making estimates for these years for nearly a decade now. The numbers that appear below are the average annual deficit or surplus for this four-year period.


 


The Breakdown of the National Debt
From "Debt to the Penny"

81.2% Increase in National Debt under Bush:
  • $5.871 Trillion in 2001
  • $10.640 Trillion in 2008
  • $4.769 Trillion Increase (81.2% Increase in National Debt)

44% Increase in National Debt Under Obama
  • $10.569 Trillion Jan 31st 2009
  • $15.223 Trillion Jan 14th 2012
  • $4.659 Trillion Increase (44.1% Increase in National Debt)

Increase Since 2001: $15.223 - $5.871 = $9.532 Trillion
Bush's PERCENTAGE of increase $4.769 Trillion / $9.532 Trillion = 50%

BUSH:
$3.56 Trillion or 76% (3.56/4.659) of the increase was Bush CARRY OVER:
  • $910 Billion = Interest on BUSH Debt 2009/2011
  • $360 Billion = BUSH Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
  • $319 Billion = BUSH TARP/Bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
  • $419 Billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
  • $190 Billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
  • $211 Billion = Bush Medicare Part-D 2009/2011
  • $771 Billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

$4.769 TRILLION from 8 Bush years
$3.560 TRILLION of Bush Carry Over

$8.329 TRILLION - Due to BUSH

Bush's PERCENTAGE (Corrected) $8.329 Trillion / $9.532 Trillion = 87.4%

87.4% of National Debt Increase caused By Bush's Programs (2001 to 2012)
12.6% of Increase caused by Obama’s Programs.
And Bush grew the federal employee’s numbers by 82%.

 

The Bush Legacy: He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Worst of all - even in spite of 9/11 - Bush could have continued Clinton's policies and paid off the National Debt in his tenure. Instead, he and the Republican chose to "cash in", with massive tax cuts to the wealthy and wealth extraction that left us deeper in debt than ever before. What Republicans did to this country profoundly weakened us. We worry about the effect of spending a trillion dollars to bring us back from an economic precipice because, during times of relative prosperity we were sold a bill of goods about how our budget would be balanced at some time in future, despite all evidence to the contrary.

What contributes to our Debt and Deficits are the unpaid for parts of the federal budget. Social Security and Medicare are paid for. Taxes cover those costs. The Defense Budget, bloated as it may be, is paid for by taxes. What is not paid for: The Bush Tax Cuts to the wealthy, Schedule-D of Bush's Medicare program, TARP/ARRA, Loss in Tax Revenue from economic downturns, Increase in Interest on the Debt from losing our AAA Credit Rating, etc.

When you consider our $16 trillion debt, you cannot ignore all the factors (many of them caused by Republicans) that put us in this debt/deficit.




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Nobody gives a damn about the debt.

Nobody.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Thank you for putting the information together for us, from this i conclude..

Bush continues to kill America.

His policies have essentially compounded over time and through other Presidents time in office and continually persists to negatively impact the country.

I dont blame Bush too much, i blame those pulling his strings. Dont get me wrong Obama has strings, just they are not as obvious as Bush's are right now.

S+F
edit on 7-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 




Nobody gives a damn about the debt.

Nobody

Your children or childrens children might....or if you dont have children, your pets childrens children.

Dont be silly mate, this not only effects the US, but the entire world.
edit on 7-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Good post. S&F

Still can't forget about Clinton replacing the Glass-Steagall Act leading to the 2008 crisis. Bush just made it worse. WAY WORSE.
edit on 7-9-2012 by thesungod because: spelling



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


I'm not being silly.

Our politicians don't care about the national debt.

If they did they'd stop wasting so much money and stop spending so much on frivolous crap just to get elected.

They just don't care about having a prosperous America. They just want to spend it into oblivion and run America into the ground.

Which also means they don't give a damn about the effect it will have on the children, either.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Blackmarketeer would you agree with the following?

Bush economic policies he implimented during his time in office act like a mulitplier, negatively effecting potential positive growth opportunities and reinforcing the potential for further debt.

A fellow member presented a really good analogy in a similar thread.

"The outside of a piece of meat can look delicious, but within lays the possibility of a rotten core"

I have worded the quote up a bit, but it has the same point. The surface statistics can be skewed all they way to give the illusion of a prosperious country, but underneth the foundations are rotten and weakening.
edit on 7-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
As far as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act is concerned, let's recall it was Republicans who wrote that repeal: Specifically, Sen. Phil Gramm, Rep. Leach, and Rep. Bliley, as part of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. The legislation was also heavily pushed by Republicans, and Clinton (like Obama) was forced into budget showdowns unless he caved into Republican demands (also recall, the federal government was forced to shut down twice in these showdowns). I think Clinton was just willing to compromise with Republicans on bills like the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, so long as it kept the process moving forward.

Another proponent pushing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was Traveler's Insurance Sanford Weill, so he could merge Traveler's Insurance with CitiCorp.

From this comment at: Bill Clinton's Stunning Jobs Claim At DNC Actually True


Now, as for the real truth, Greenspan revised gutted Section 20 of the act in order to allow holding companies to invest TWICE as much as previously allowed, in essence making Glass-Steagall obsolete. That's in Byron Dorgan's book "Reckless", and Byron should know because he stood as a lone voice against the repeal of the act in 1999. And in fact, Weill made a call to Clinton the subject of which was a compromise on the Community Reinvestment Act which Phil Gramm was actually trying to gut.

The House version differed in two important ways:

1) It took regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve and gave it to the Secretary of the Treasury.

2) It refused to extend to insurance companies obligations under the Community Re-investment Act to provide information about their patterns of mortgage lending.

It was the Community Reinvestment Act provision in particular that threatened to derail the conference committee. The Community Reinvestment Act required regulated banks and thrifts to offer loans and banking services throughout their service areas, including lower-income communities. But here is the wrinkle - the CRA essentially served to protect low and moderate income communities from predatory lending, such as subprime mortgages. If anyone has doubts about Sandy Weill's connections between GLB and the subprime market, just a year after the passage of the bill repealing Glass-Steagall, Citigroup had become the number one subprime lender in the country. Its vehicle for this was the newly formed CitiFinancial.


And:
The Long Agony of Glass-Steagall in the hands of financial oligarchy and corrupt Reaganites

While Phil Gramm and Sandy Weill played an important and pretty dirty role in repeal of the act, the repeal became possible because financial industry was united in this desire and at the moment did not have substantial opposition. On the contrary, "Main street" (aka big business) was neutral, if not supportive and Congress was split along the party lines all Republican voted for the repeal). Also the means to bypass Glass-Steagal already were invented and widely used. Here is one insightful comment which shows the complex history of the act repeal: (read source for rest of text)


The claim "Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall" is about as valid as the claim that Obama is 100% responsible for all $16T in our debt. Look behind the curtain at the policies and who pushed those policies to see the responsible parties.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Funny how entitlement spending for the last decade is not mentioned in those graphics really is amazing at the crap being peddled on ATS.







What is the biggest spending in this country?
SS,Medicare,Medicaid that is not even mentioned.

That is over $2.2 trillion of current federal spending.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Funny how entitlement spending for the last decade is not mentioned in those graphics really is amazing at the crap being peddled on ATS.


Your crap is pretty amazing buddy!




What is the biggest spending in this country?
SS,Medicare,Medicaid that is not even mentioned.

That is over $2.2 trillion of current federal spending.


Yes and people paid into those, what is your point?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thepresident
 


You mean this crap?

www.usdebtclock.org...



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 



Blackmarketeer would you agree with the following?

Bush economic policies he implimented during his time in office act like a mulitplier, negatively effecting potential positive growth opportunities and reinforcing the potential for further debt.

A fellow member presented a really good analogy in a similar thread.

"The outside of a piece of meat can look delicious, but within lays the possibility of a rotten core"

I have worded the quote up a bit, but it has the same point. The surface statistics can be skewed all they way to give the illusion of a prosperious country, but underneth the foundations are rotten and weakening.


I absolutely would agree. We can debate which policy is responsible for what, but underlying all of that - the rotten core - is the fact that our policy makers are more beholden to their donors and special interest groups pouring money into their campaign coffers, than they are in implementing sound policies to fix the economy and debt. Something as simple as a trade policy or a banking regulation that could reverse the path were on is opposed in Congress because our Senators and Representatives are in the back pockets of the banks and special interests.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Here is more crap:

Tarp was paid back

www.housingwire.com...

More about Fanny and Freddy bailouts under the current guy:

finance.townhall.com...

There is breaking down the debt

The trillion dollar student loan debt that was not a trillion dollars under the last guy.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You can spin this however you wish...
Bottom line, if you can't pay the bills at the end of the day you have two options:
1. Force your employer to pay you more (Try that... walk into your boss' office and DEMAND a pay increase or, better yet, pry open the company safe and take whatever you need. I'm sure you'll keep your job and won't have charges filed against you for theft.
)
OR
2. Eliminate expenditures. Start buying store brands, get rid of cable, downsize your living situation, be responsible.

Which of these options is most logical here, in the real world, for you and I in our everyday lives? Why is that supposed to be reversed when dealing with the government's budget (or, in the case of this administration, the complete LACK of a budget)?

You make ends meet by taking a second job (note, almost without fail said second job is with a different employer) which the Feds could do by actually getting some international level deals going that MAKE America some damn money instead of following status quo and shipping mad fistfulls of OUR money around the globe in exchange for handfulls of dried magic beans. You also make ends meet by cutting up the credit cards, eliminating everything you can eliminate and then, eliminate a little more. Cut crap down to the bone, but doing it in areas that won't crush you completely down the road. We've got a freaking ton of fat at the Federal level. Eliminate the TSA, eliminate 90% of the wastefull welfare programs that make people reject the idea of taking a minimum wage job because they make from Uncle Sam's teats, want an education? Fine, figure out how in the hell YOU will pay for it. Same goes for owning a house, same goes for virtually every cent of federal expenditures past what the individual, themself, has paid into the system during their working life. Watch, amazingly, as educations become more affordable because universities suddenly realize "Oh, crap balls. The feds aren't paying for this anymore so we need to become competitive or we'll be down to skelton crews of students who can afford this." Watch as home prices become reasonable and realistic because sellers recognize that it isn't possible for the average Joe to pay for a house that costs a third of mill. Watch as banks actually start working with the people because they no longer have the tax payer to bail their sorry asses out.

That's called reform and that's called change. That's also what has been woefully absent from this FAILURE of a presidency even moreso than it was absent from the previous FAILED presidencies of the past decade. Obama's camp can play the blame game all they want... bottom line, he WANTED the job, he ACCEPTED the job, and it is beyond irresponsible and the true mark of a failure to refuse the responsibility which comes along with the job. You're in for a penny, in for a pound when you sit in the big seat. When you attempt to pick and choose with the goal being accepting all accolades while redirecting all criticism and responsibility, you leave the big seat empty and worthless.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 7-9-2012 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Easy fix... who saw Logan's Run?

Let's make that a reality... nothing to worry on after that.

The first cut is always the deepest right?


Derek



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Nice mega-thread, i saw this pop up in my friends profile.


FTR I don't like the term "Bush did X or Y", Bush was only the figurehead. The real culprits are policy and law makers, from both parties. It might be that 90% of the current GOP is enslaved to the Big Banks, and some Dems as well (I give them credit for Dodd-Frank), to lay the blame on one man distances the perception the problem lies with those writing the laws that remove regulations of banks.

S and F, for the reading matter.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


So when Obama keeps the Bush tax cuts, do we still blame Bush? Thought so. Does this take into account the possible benefit to the economy of the tax cuts or does it just add lost tax revenue without considering any potential gain from the cuts?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
How does the congressional budget office track these types of things when the Obama administration is so reluctant to PASS a budget?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by QUANTUMGR4V17Y
 



How does the congressional budget office track these types of things when the Obama administration is so reluctant to PASS a budget?


2011 United States federal budget

2010 United States federal budget

2012 United States federal budget

Every budget submitted was obstructed, too:
Obama Budget, Republican Obstruction, May Lead to Gridlock in Washington
Democrats condemn GOP's plot to obstruct Obama as 'appalling and sad'
Every year there's some battle over the budget, but the level of obstructionism from one side against the other has never been this bad.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Nobody gives a damn about the debt.

Nobody.



No kidding, and putting up chart after chart to place blame on a certain political party does nothing to fix the problem. Playing the blame game is just a cop out. Yes, Bush policies put America deeper in debt, same could be said of Obama. Same will be said of Romney, or an Obama second term.

So really breaking it down, neither party has the best interests of the people.



new topics




 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join