It’s Official: Obama Has Now Borrowed $3 Trillion

Gunner

Potential Star
Registered
http://www.cnsnews.com/



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.
 
You talk like these bush wars and all the support bullshit and reconstruction costs are either cheap or free.

You do realize that this nation is responsible for rebuilding Iraq's infractracture and Afghanistan after we finish fuckin it up. Bush tax cuts for the wealthy has to be paid for and fucked up wing nuts want to make the taxpayer continue to pay for them. Bush 650 BILLION gift to the big pharma, also not paid for that has a bill that has come due; all of which is to be born by us tax payers.

Now we got foreign governments through the US chamber of commerce spending big money on republicans in order to continue purchasing major sectors of American birthright. How else could the president keep this big bitch afloat without borrowing the money? GTFOH Corporations ain't paying any taxes and the money has to come from somewhere.

Foreign governments OWN republicans lock, stock and barrel. Why else would they seek to eliminate Social Security, close or privatize the VA's, the same Veterans Administration we fund to help care for the men and women we ask to put their lives on the got damn line. You also want to eliminate the education department. Too much learning going on. They kill it for people in China, so your party wants that for us as well. They want to make American into a 3rd world nation. Part of that New World Order Bush Sr talked about. :hmm:

And you go, still on some old bullshit talking point about the federal government's need to run this country. Shit that ain't free either. Shit you've become as anti american as they come and you still ain't figured it out yet. Ill tell you one thing, it's about the middle class. If the middle is failing, the nation fails. Proven fact. From Surplus to having to borrow money. What a got damn party you belong to. :smh:

-VG
 
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=10093000.txt

FY2010 Deficit: $1.652 TRILLION
According to the US Treasury report, THE FED technically, did $58+ BILLION in Quantitative Easing on the last day of the fiscal year 2010. (actually $58.54 Billion) :smh:

US_Treasury_Final_2010.jpg


FED_Draws_By_US_Treasury.jpg
 
http://www.cnsnews.com/



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.




So since you are so concerned about the debt under the Obama administration, you are all for the GW tax cuts to lapses.
 
It’s Official: Obama Has Now Borrowed $3 Trillion

Monday, October 18, 2010


Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

Wednesday, September 08, 2010


Community Organizer at best

September 02, 2010



It takes one to know one.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_xCeItxbQY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_xCeItxbQY&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



Obama the Great Job Killer

Jul. 04, 2010

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal


[b] More unintended consequence...elected. :confused: </font size> QueEx
 
Spending...smending...tomato...tomato.. It's about time we ask is there any real difference between Bush and Obama.
 
It's funny how Obama supporters are quick to use the "bush wars" card, yet, Obama has not pulled the plug on the war on terror. I mean if that's the only thing that will save the deficit, why not just end all operations immediately?

In fact, since we are blaming Bush for everything, why not Obama blame Bush for 9-11 happening? In fact, say that Bush planned it, and blamed it on the Terrorists? I'm sure every knee pad wearing lib will agree to the gospel of Obama. I'm sure Thought will count Obama's idea as a "credible, and THOUGHT provoking concept". Chris Matthews will get a tingly feeling in places wear no straight man should fill "tingly" feelings at, and Que will wait until Rush mock it before he actually show his true opinion. :lol:
 
It's funny how Obama supporters are quick to use the "bush wars" card, yet, Obama has not pulled the plug on the war on terror. I mean if that's the only thing that will save the deficit, why not just end all operations immediately?

Are you certain the President uses your myopic "war on terror" construct ???

President Barack Obama has rejected George W. Bush's doctrine that placed the "war on terror" at the centre of American foreign policy. The US president has instead replaced it with a softer approach stressing "new partnerships" and multilateral diplomacy.

"Our long-term security will not come from our ability to instill fear in other peoples but through our capacity to speak to their hopes," Mr Obama said in a message introducing a new national security strategy.

In the 52-page document, drawn up after 16 months of deliberations, Mr Obama outlines a much broader set of priorities and methods than Mr Bush's tightly-focused determination to eradicate Islamism by any means possible and alone if necessary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Obama-declares-the-War-on-Terror-is-over.html
 
So since you are so concerned about the debt under the Obama administration, you are all for the GW tax cuts to lapses.


Thought the tax cut you speak to is your money. Government must learn to live within its means. Bush spent like a drunken sailor. That doesn't make it right.

GR2009032100104.gif
 
<font size="3">The fiscal ills you NOW complain of: increased federal spending, growing deficits, Washington’s earmark culture, the looming entitlement crises — were begun by and in full force during in the Bush years. :hmm:

Funny, I can't seem to find any record on this board of your comments back then. Oddly, you seem to have come out of the woodworks only after Obama was elected. :confused:
</font size>


QueEx

Name some things that you are proud that Obama has done besides bringing the troops home. I'll give you that. Don't answer a question with a question either.


Wars-not-paid-for.gif


What are progressives running on this campaign season? Jobs, healthcare or is it cap and trade?


Some of his upper cabinet members are jumping ship and 91% of you are still holding on. Oh I forgot most of you don't watch "Meet The Press"
 
Last edited:
Look at those fucked up graphics. You have to be a teabagger to be snookered by this bullshit. Bush spent the damn surplus delivered to him on a silver platter from a democratic president named Bill Clinton. A SURPLUS.

So no, you can't have super debt when you got money to burn but that money is gone and a shit load more leaving us with what we have now. GTFOH, I'm a democrat not a teabagger. :hmm:

And look at the label title for the gif this winger posted.

Wars-not-paid-for.gif :lol:


Wars-not-paid-for.gif


My god you must have a lot of ignorance in your circle. War in iraq started in 2003, bills started coming due in 05, couldn't fudge the books any longer and bush made regular trips to the rostrum to get 80 BILLION dollar credit cards out the American taxpayer, still talking about a WMD. Now Bush in in China with his cup out, beggin' for money and I still ain't seen a trace of WMD yet and we're living in Iraq right damn now and can't find any.

Now you get the picture bagger? Is it coming a little clearer to you now? Do you now see why major parts of this nation is being sold off to China and India?? We owe shit loads of money on loans to those nations we can't pay and they want payments. I told you, you still trying to sell old talking points and time has moved on. Thank you republican party. :hmm:

-VG
 
you must realize the action was necessary to combat the reckless borrowing & spending of the Bush administration!

Some, in this thread, hold the position we didn't spend enough

In the mean time...

Don't follow what is being "said", look at what is being done.



Republican lawmakers who shunned stimulus lobbied for funds behind the scenes


Scores of Republican lawmakers--including tea party stars Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas--privately sought out funds from the government's $787 billion stimulus program even while publicly denouncing it as a failure. The Center for Public Integrity has a comprehensive report on scores of politicians whom the watchdog group says it caught in stimulus "hypocrisy."

...and the band played on!
 
Are you certain the President uses your myopic "war on terror" construct ???


All he did was change the wording for PR purposes. Please, don't play me as a fool. Troops are doing mostly the same thing they have been doing when Bush was in charge. It's just not reported like it would be if Bush was in office...
 
In the mean time...

...and the band played on!

Weak, Weak, Weak!

yeah, hijack the thread that shows Pres. Obama spending 1.6 Trill to address the reckless borrowing & spending of the Bush administration..................Intellectually Weak!
 
Weak, Weak, Weak!

yeah, hijack the thread that shows Pres. Obama spending 1.6 Trill to address the reckless borrowing & spending of the Bush administration..................Intellectually Weak!

Shocker, Ron Paul is a politician too! I know this one hurt!
 
Look at those fucked up graphics. You have to be a teabagger to be snookered by this bullshit. Bush spent the damn surplus delivered to him on a silver platter from a democratic president named Bill Clinton. A SURPLUS.

So no, you can't have super debt when you got money to burn but that money is gone and a shit load more leaving us with what we have now. GTFOH, I'm a democrat not a teabagger. :hmm:

And look at the label title for the gif this winger posted.

Wars-not-paid-for.gif :lol:


Wars-not-paid-for.gif




My god you must have a lot of ignorance in your circle. War in iraq started in 2003, bills started coming due in 05, couldn't fudge the books any longer and bush made regular trips to the rostrum to get 80 BILLION dollar credit cards out the American taxpayer, still talking about a WMD. Now Bush in in China with his cup out, beggin' for money and I still ain't seen a trace of WMD yet and we're living in Iraq right damn now and can't find any.

Now you get the picture bagger? Is it coming a little clearer to you now? Do you now see why major parts of this nation is being sold off to China and India?? We owe shit loads of money on loans to those nations we can't pay and they want payments. I told you, you still trying to sell old talking points and time has moved on. Thank you republican party. :hmm:

-VG

Clinton was president with a right wing congress. Mr. Limbaugh!!! Surplus means we were over taxed smart A--. I bet you overpaid for that pinto. So you are happy that you were F screwed???


head-up-ass.jpg
 
All he did was change the wording for PR purposes. Please, don't play me as a fool. Troops are doing mostly the same thing they have been doing when Bush was in charge. It's just not reported like it would be if Bush was in office...

I understand, it may be difficult to discern if its not stated simply in terms of liberals and conservatives; republicans and democrats.

QueEx
 
Name some things that you are proud that Obama has done besides bringing the troops home. I'll give you that. Don't answer a question with a question either.
I'm proud of his handling of the BP oil spill.

I'm not disappointed with his handling of Iran.

I'm not disappointed in his handling of Israel.


Thus far, I'm pleased with his healthcare legislation, though I provide health insurance for our employees.

All that, and I still can't find where you criticized Bush for the the same things you now castigate this President.

QueEx
 
I'm proud of his handling of the BP oil spill.

I'm not disappointed with his handling of Iran.

I'm not disappointed in his handling of Israel.


Thus far, I'm pleased with his healthcare legislation, though I provide health insurance for our employees.

All that, and I still can't find where you criticized Bush for the the same things you now castigate this President.

QueEx

Yes, as I aforementioned Bush hands have blood on them. He was called a compassionate conservative. ( whatever that means ) he had the power to veto but he didn't. The referenced chart indicated such. I don't believe that just because a president run deficits the next guy gets a free pass. Honestly, besides the wars it is one of the main reasons they were voted out and the dems took control
.
 
You may like healthcare because you know it may not affect your bottom line. Sorta like those on the dole voting for taxes they will never pay. Why aren't dems running on healthcare? I haven't seen any commercial in MY state. Obama is a plague in Louisiana.
 
Yes, as I aforementioned Bush hands have blood on them. He was called a compassionate conservative. ( whatever that means ) he had the power to veto but he didn't.
<font size="3">Great. But my question was: where on this board did you say those things about GW during the Res Gestae, that is, where are your statements admonishing GW for these things, during the course of the events when they occurred ???

If you can show where you made those statements, back then, they would have a much higher degeree of credibility now -- when it looks like you're just making shit up in justification for what appears to be an obvious bias against the sitting President. :(
</font size>

I don't believe that just because a president run deficits the next guy gets a free pass. Honestly, besides the wars it is one of the main reasons they were voted out and the dems took control
.

<font size="3">So, you believe in blame the next guy for the former guy's fuck ups ?!?!? :eek:


QueEx</font size>
 
You may like healthcare because you know it may not affect your bottom line. Sorta like those on the dole voting for taxes they will never pay. Why aren't dems running on healthcare? I haven't seen any commercial in MY state. Obama is a plague in Louisiana.

No it may very well affect my bottom line; recall, I've been offering healthcare to employees a hellava long time before the healthcare bill was conceived and well before I would have any idea what, if any, impact it might have on my bottom line. But you making that ASSUMPTION is more like you don't really know what the fuck you're talking about.

I don't give a fuck what dems run or or don't run on. First, my interest lies not with the Dem motivations. Secondly, in the political climate, you can run on right and still lose. Conversely, and you may understand this better: you can run on wrong, and still win.

QueEx
 
is your money.

george-w-bush.jpg

"It's your money. You paid for it."

LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BqLvBUSJucg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BqLvBUSJucg?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>​
 
<font size="3">Great. But my question was: where on this board did you say those things about GW during the Res Gestae, that is, where are your statements admonishing GW for these things, during the course of the events when they occurred ???

If you can show where you made those statements, back then, they would have a much higher degeree of credibility now -- when it looks like you're just making shit up in justification for what appears to be an obvious bias against the sitting President. :(
</font size>



<font size="3">So, you believe in blame the next guy for the former guy's fuck ups ?!?!? :eek:



QueEx</font size>

To be honest, if you notice I wasn't posting as long as many of you. I'd normally just read entries and get :angry: at some of the posts.
 
No it may very well affect my bottom line; recall, I've been offering healthcare to employees a hellava long time before the healthcare bill was conceived and well before I would have any idea what, if any, impact it might have on my bottom line. But you making that ASSUMPTION is more like you don't really know what the fuck you're talking about.

I don't give a fuck what dems run or or don't run on. First, my interest lies not with the Dem motivations. Secondly, in the political climate, you can run on right and still lose. Conversely, and you may understand this better: you can run on wrong, and still win.

QueEx

No I'm not making an assumption. If you had the amount of employees that would require you to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes you would be livid. If you're not having a problem, business must be grand and you're hiring more unlike the rest of a whole nation. Damn you're future cost forecast. Que do you really have that many employees or you're just pulling my leg?

I can agree with the latter portion of your argument. Well put!
 
No I'm not making an assumption. If you had the amount of employees that would require you to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes you would be livid. If you're not having a problem, business must be grand and you're hiring more unlike the rest of a whole nation. Damn you're future cost forecast. Que do you really have that many employees or you're just pulling my leg?

I can agree with the latter portion of your argument. Well put!

I won't discuss the size or other details of my firm but I will say this, we provide insurance because it helps to produce better producing employees. For example, if mother is not worried about baby's care, she is much more likely to concentrate on work = better for my bottom line.

QueEx
 
Back
Top