CBS News (via Drudge) has this:
National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush
The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
And the reason for all this debt and spending? You know the answer to that:
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.
Bush’s fault. Of course, how silly of me.
But the Medicare Part D actually has cost less than forecast:
A report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on January 24 reveals Medicare Part D costs are substantially lower than federal officials estimated they would be, thanks in part to free-market forces at work in the plan.
According to the report, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017,” between 2007 and 2013 Part D will cost 26 percent less than expected–about $136 billion less over the period.
That’s because “Medicare’s payments for prescription drugs under Part D are largely based on competitive bids that drug plans submit to provide coverage,” the report’s authors write. “The bids submitted for calendar year 2007 are much lower than expected–about 15 percent below the per-capita costs of providing drug coverage.
Have any of Obama’s programs done that?
Oh, and Bush is the reason for Obama’s proposed budgets – that do nothing to cut spending…
The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.
Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today’s standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.
Mr. Obama doesn’t mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it’s topped a trillion dollars for four years now.
As part of his “Win the Future” program, Mr. Obama called for “taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it.”
His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.
That would be great but as we have pointed out – WE DON’T HAVE A BUDGET.
If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.
President Spendthrift doesn’t care, if he doesn’t get reelected, he doesn’t have to worry about it and if he does, he will just spend the time on golf and vacations because he’s out anyway in 2016.
The Rio Norte Line 
Oh yes- more fun with numbers. So let’s consider a few things. There are two forms of government debt- that held by the public- meaning treasury bonds, securities, etc, and gross government debt- meaning both the public debt and debt held by the government (such as social security and medicare trust funds)
And then of course there are different ways of counting it- raw numbers, related to GDP, accounting for the interest on previous debt, adjusting for inflation…
Now- there is no denying Obama has wracked up debt at a huge dollar value. Of course mitigating factors include loss of tax income due the economy, the huge costs associated with dealing with inheriting an economy at its worst since the great depression, and two wars.
But no matter what formula you use- some interesting numbers appear.
Jimmy Carter +6-9%
Ronald Reagan: +189-256%
George W Bush: +56-86
Bill Clinton: +34-39
George H W Bush +87-93
Barack Obama: +37-41
So no matter which way you choose to slice the numbers- Reagan hands down did the most damage to our debt, followed by the two Bush’s. All 3 democrats (as well as the republican ford before Carder) did amazing jobs of keeping the debt growth small.
Oh- and all data is from the US treasury and the Bearuea if Economic Analysis.
In other words, 1 form of debt – PUBLIC! This is still a republic, at least in name. And that means the PEOPLE 9i.e. public) are responsible for the govt…and its debt.
Interesting, Utah used a formula that made Obama the #1 WORST IN HISTORY, so you just defeated your own claim.
And citing the federal govt. numbers on accounting doesn’t help your case, either.
Here’s another little interesting tidbit.
Democrat control of the House of Representatives until 1994, two years into Clinton’s first term. Democrat control resuming in 2006.
Spending bills must originate in the House.
It is also interesting that you tout Obama as the only one who had a bad economy – Reagan inherited a disastrous Carter economy – oil embargos, 21% mortgages, and “stagflation”, George H.W. Bush had Iraq invading Kuwait and the first Gulf War, George W. Bush inherited the dotcom bust from Clinton and had 9/11 in the first year of his presidency and a national transportation shut down for the 6 months after it plus two necessary wars.
The case could be made that Carter and Clinton simply cruised through their terms because of what their Republican predecessors did. Clinton owes his to Republican control of the Congress forcing welfare, entitlement and spending reforms, things he never would have done unless forced to do. Remember Hillarycare?
Hey, here’s another way to add things up that seems to negate your claims.
OH! And here’s another. (I like this one, it is visual – which helps with the logically challenged.)
Here’s a site with some historical perspective, and it is calculated several ways (I’m sorry, but it is not entirely supportive of your claims.)
And one more. I like the visual on this one so much, I thought I’d help you with it. Here:
You know, drugs, it’s not so much the Party that is to blame for the national debt, but the IDEOLOGY of those in power. If they are Keynesian, they add tot he debt. If they are more Austrian in thinking (read that “more like our founding fathers”), then they decrease the debt.
Looking at it this way and we can easily see who is responsible, and it was not Reagan, but it also condemns “W” as equally as Obama, Clinton and Carter. 😉
Obama can blame Bush, but Obama has done little to change what he says is wrong.
Thanks for the info on the prescription drug savings. Somehow, that data has been overlooked by many news outlets.
Has anyone ever noticed that, for all their claims about “caring” for the middle class, the Left’s policies generally serve to destroy it? Now where have I read comments that would suggest the origin of this sort of thinking before?
If he didn’t say it, he thought about saying it.
So- I failed miserably- I was exhausted. My response was pretty much tongue in cheek to illustrate that numbers can say, more often then not, what people want them to say. Disraelli’s “lies, damn, lies, and statistics. or Rex Stouts: “there are two kinds of statistics- the kind you look up, and the kind you make up”
I am not particularly an Obama fan. Nor was I a Bush fan. But I’ll admit Obama inherited one hell of a situation. I still, and will always remember, the full page ads the FDIC took out after WAMU and other banks failed, “reassuring” americans that all was fine.
And I will say- regarding some of the other comments. The internet bubble was in no way comparaple to what happened under Bush. That Clintons economic policies (as opposed to social) tended towards the centrist, and caused a great deal of problems down the road. That Reagans debt, while he did inherit a bit of a mess as well, his debt was largely related to the arms race, and really- a genius if not extremely dangerous attempt to bankrupt the USSR – whic hwhile sucessful we are still paying for. (and to be fair- I grew up in the first strike zone comprosied of DC, Camp David, and the underground pentagon. Much of my family and friends were extremely high ranking CIA and NSA, and I grew up in this era hearing things I never should have…And I still begrudge the comment, made when he didn’t know the cameras were on, that “the soviet union has been declared an outlaw nation, bombing will begin in a few minutes” How close we came…)
Personally- I think we need to have a constitutional convention. It has been far too long since our country has sat down and had an honest discourse on where we are, and where we are going. But sadly- I don’t think we are capable of such a thing now.
Both parties are out of control. and Ron Paul is far from a solution. (Gary Johnson was, in my opinion, a far better choice then Paul but of course he went nowhere…)
But if we continue on this current path- right vs left, republican vs democrat- america may well prove to be one of the shortest lived major nations in the worlds history.
Aaah, now, with ALL of that, we can sit down and share a beer as allies and friends – I’ll even buy 😀
I’d be honered. And while I don’t expect to change your mind, or vice versa, I would hope that we see that we actually agree on some things, and where we disagree- maybe plant the seed of doubt that neither is so right, or so wrong.
I would much rather have my views and beliefs intelligently challenged, then by surrounded by the choir. Make me think damnit!
And again, I agree – because Melfamy and I have already discovered this truth.
I’ve come to realize that, once we separate ourselves from those who appointed themselves to lead us, we’re not so different as individuals. In general, we do want the same things, we just tend to chose different ways of achieving our goals. But those who lead us would rather we not understand that because – when we do – they lose their power and their purpose for being.