Patterico's Pontifications

3/20/2012

National Debt Increases More in Three Years of Obama Than in Eight Years of Bush

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:31 pm

Enough to make you run around the room screaming and yanking out large tufts of hair:

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.

I think we know whose fault this is.

Boooooooosh!

48 Comments

  1. If Bush had let the deficit climb more, Obama wouldn’t have had to.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/20/2012 @ 7:33 pm

  2. food stamp nation

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/20/2012 @ 7:35 pm

  3. All Bush’s fault! And the Bilderbergers’! And the Gnomes of Zurich! Trilateral Commission! Illuminati! UFO’s! Glenn Beck!

    Comment by MunDane (861704) — 3/20/2012 @ 7:51 pm

  4. Sadly, I do not qualify for Food Stamps. I feel stigmatized.

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/20/2012 @ 8:00 pm

  5. Racists!

    Comment by Icy (927b00) — 3/20/2012 @ 8:20 pm

  6. Sorry to be Off-Topic, but don’t you just love how the Slimes is ALL OVER the Tom Hanks blackface video.

    Comment by MikeHu (d45259) — 3/20/2012 @ 8:39 pm

  7. Demo debt is good; GOP debt is bad.

    Comment by AZ Bob (1c9631) — 3/20/2012 @ 8:46 pm

  8. I can’t wait to see how Krugman justifies more deficit spending in an expanding economy, however weak it is, why this doesn’t matter and, oh yeah, you’re all racists.

    Never mind, I could write the column.

    Comment by Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/20/2012 @ 8:53 pm

  9. George Bush, currently out of office, shouldn’t take all the blame.

    Some of it has to be shared by Sarah Palin, currently out of office, as well as Mitt Romney, currently out of office, Rick Santorum, currently out of office, and Newt Gingrich, currently out of office.

    It’s kind of biased to just blame the guy currently in office, don’t you think ?

    Comment by Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:02 pm

  10. I blame Obama — currently out of his tiny little mind.

    Comment by Icy (927b00) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:07 pm

  11. I blame my next-door neighbor who still calls me Kent. My name is not Kent.

    Comment by Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:16 pm

  12. It’s just a messaging problem.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:28 pm

  13. Next time the guy currently in office says he “needs two terms” to improve the economy with all that change, hopefully someone among the White House Press Corps will perk up and say, “A-ha, but you already did spend two terms worth of money.”

    Calling Ed Henry…

    Comment by Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:35 pm

  14. mittens to the rescue. ha ,ha,ha. mitty care will save all of you. hee, hee, hee. Mitt is a socialist, good republicans can count on.
    Oh brother, help us, the citizens have become subjects.

    Comment by sickofrinos (44de53) — 3/20/2012 @ 9:51 pm

  15. Hey, you guys think essential government programs like sending Moochelle and her pals on vacations to Spain, or supplying Mexican drug gangs with adequate weaponry is cheap?

    This stuff costs money.

    So, pony up, and quit your bitchin’.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:17 pm

  16. Obama had to do it. We were facing a DE-RE-PRE-SSION OF Koran-ical PROPORTIONS.
    We were in this great big BUSH CAUSED DITCH.

    Racists.

    Comment by Gus (694db4) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:21 pm

  17. I NEED ME SOME RUBBERS!!! And if you don’t GET ME SOME FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RUBBERS, you will be responsible for all the UNWANTED BABIES in DARFUR.

    And CLEVELAND.

    Comment by Gus (694db4) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:24 pm

  18. Seriously. We are in deep trouble. And all of our trouble is caused by RED NECK, WYMYN HATING WHITE DUDES, who just DON’T GET IT.
    What we need is lots and lots and lots of BIRTH CONTROL STUFF!!!
    We should drop that stuff FROM HELIO-COPTERS and DRONES. It would change everything. Pert-soon, we have a great economy, Obama has at least one of his ears on Mount Rush-Limbaugh, and ALL IS GOOD.

    Comment by Gus (694db4) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:27 pm

  19. As long as the Republicans held Congress the debt didn’t go up at all (unfortunately it didn’t go down either). But, the minute the Dems got back in the driver’s seat, and Carl Marx Jr. got elected president…the debt started rising like crazy.

    Debt as a percentage of GDP in 1994 was 65.5%.

    In 2006, the year the Insane Maniac Party regained control of Congress, the debt was at 63.5% of GDP (hint: no real increase in the debt while the Republicans had control of the purse strings).

    Now, in 2012, just six years later, the debt is at 104.8% of GDP, the highest it’s ever been except at the end of WWII.

    And, it’s pretty much 100% the fault of the Dems in Congress, and the Great Black Dope in the White House.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:34 pm

  20. Bush left a legacy of loss. There’s no denying that.

    Comment by nk (dec503) — 3/20/2012 @ 10:37 pm

  21. I forgot to add “Roootherford” B. Hayes to the list of responsible parties for Obama’s debt crisis.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 3/20/2012 @ 11:04 pm

  22. it’s mainly Congress’ fault, since they’re the only ones who have the power to borrow money.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/20/2012 @ 11:22 pm

  23. What a great president would do would be to use his veto power to block every appropriations bill that came out of the den of thieves, unless the appropriation was for something affordable AND constitutional.

    Unfortunately, we haven’t had a great president for generations, and it doesn’t look like we’re going to anytime soon.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/20/2012 @ 11:26 pm

  24. Obama is a Stuttering Cluster F**k Of A Miserable Failure.

    SCOAMF, if you want the acronym…. 8)

    Comment by redc1c4, proud AoS moron (403dff) — 3/21/2012 @ 1:02 am

  25. Shouldn’t “Boooooooosh!” be all caps? Inquiring minds…..

    Comment by Black Deuce (b1f2e2) — 3/21/2012 @ 4:29 am

  26. 10-year Treasuries on a all-time-record 10 day rise, mortgage applications plummet 7.5%, QE3 anyone? Ben?

    Hard to believe even suckwad Willard could lose to this guy with no third-party competition.

    A nail-biter.

    Comment by gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/21/2012 @ 4:58 am

  27. Take the bet, Gulrud. The proof that you asked of Icy is on the other thread, oh ye who touted a brokered convention.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2dcb8f) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:01 am

  28. Paul Ryan’s heroic economic plan has the US exiting deficit in 2040.

    DOA in GOP-controlled Senate 2013.

    Comment by gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:02 am

  29. 28. You are a lying simpleton, dickcheese. You’re ‘bet’, $100 for a coin flip is a stupid punt in any case.

    Comment by gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:04 am

  30. your*. Was Doh banned, or was he Breitbart?

    Comment by gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:06 am

  31. This is the story that needs to be hammered.

    And where did those billions go? Where did the millions go? Whose pockets did they line? We need names, not faceless companies. Exactly how will they be paid back?

    These are the questions that should be asked every day, every hour, by every thinking person on every communication media there is.

    Comment by Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:22 am

  32. From the Obama scrapes his nickels together thread:

    107.34. “Gingrich is fine, but unloved, could he be the least objectionable resort in a contested convention? I’d be shocked, but reasonably satisfied.”

    Comment by gary gulrud — 3/13/2012 @ 3:48 pm

    114. Trende does the math:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/09/romney_really_might_not_have_the_delegates_by_june.html

    An optimistic count for Romney leaves him short until late June when the unassigned delegates from earlier primaries are apportioned–86 to be exact.

    Trende assumes he will get up to half leaving the RNC delegates to put him over the top.

    Comment by gary gulrud — 3/9/2012 @ 1:19 pm

    115. Oh, that results in a ‘contested’ convention, not brokered if he doesn’t get the first ballot nod.

    Comment by gary gulrud — 3/9/2012 @ 1:21 pm

    And again:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848

    116. Not saying he won’t get it, but if the GOP actually wants to win, they will get their chance.

    Comment by gary gulrud — 3/9/2012 @ 2:47 pm

    Comment by Colonel Haiku — 3/20/2012 @ 2:42 pm

    ‘Contested’ and ‘Brokered’ are defined differently. Brokered implies a non-candidate emerging, contested not. Contested merely implies rules committee challenges at minimum.

    Comment by gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:24 am

  33. 32. Rush’s “money laundering”. Green shoots Billions were ploughed 10% back into the DNC and Ogabe’s pockets.

    Comment by gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/21/2012 @ 5:26 am

  34. Folks… a fund has been set up to take care of the late Andrew Breitbart’s children. Contributions can be sent to:

    Breitbart Children’s Trust

    149 S. Barrington Ave, #735

    Los Angeles, CA 90049.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2dcb8f) — 3/21/2012 @ 6:53 am

  35. You are mincing words, gulrud. “Contested” or “brokered”, you are in essence describing the same process.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (2dcb8f) — 3/21/2012 @ 6:58 am

  36. GOP nominee (insert nominee’s name here) should tattoo that graphic on his forehead.

    Comment by Bugg (34ad0e) — 3/21/2012 @ 11:35 am

  37. Axelrod had the stones to say they have reduced the deficit by $1,200,000,000,000

    Comment by JD (516dcc) — 3/21/2012 @ 2:28 pm

  38. three points for debate:

    1 – every successive president will have the biggest ever deficit from now on because the interest is spiraling uncontrollably

    2 – Bush crashed the economy, making Obama walk in to a crisis neither party had answers for

    3 – Wall Street the .01% has thrived during this period, meaning party is irrelevant in the swindle of the middle class

    I am a fiscal conservative, so I obviously don’t support Obama, but this said, he is no socialist, he has been continuing the stovepiping that enriches both parties.

    Remember, Republicans created 3/4 of this deficit before Obama was elected. Paying it down was impossible with the aging of the population, globalism and over a decade of for-profit war, but the corruption is the most insulting, built right into our campaign system.

    While Obama has failed to slow the deficit, no alternative plan is in sight. The idea we will grow our way out of these deficits with Asia on the rise is a fatal joke but the GOP’s current economic plan actually seems to be feudalism, with increases in military debt spending.

    Comment by the ragman (5c9853) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:21 pm

  39. Ragman hearts dishonesty. At a very base level.

    Comment by JD (516dcc) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:23 pm

  40. I am a fiscal conservative, so I obviously don’t support Obama

    This is belied by your allegiance to lies and leftist drivel.

    Comment by JD (516dcc) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:25 pm

  41. how did Bush crash the economy exactly?

    Please show your work.

    Comment by happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:27 pm

  42. Cue picture of troll pissing on somebody’s leg

    Lying Moby troll – it is raining. I promise.

    Comment by JD (516dcc) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:28 pm

  43. the ragman, you are not a fiscal conservative plainly. Your claims are false. The Republican Congress had deficits a small fraction of the current one. And your claim that “Bush crashed the economy” is brazenly false. George W. Bush did nothing that caused the fall in housing prices that triggered the mortgage backed securities crash in values. That’s what triggered the financial crisis in ’08.

    A “fiscal conservative” would not make such false statements but a Moby would.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:31 pm

  44. I am a fiscal conservative, so I obviously don’t support Obama, but this said, he is no socialist, he has been continuing the stovepiping that enriches both parties.

    Why is he no socialist? Single payer seems kinda socialist to me. Hell, Obamacare seems fairly socialist as government control of economic choice to provide to each according to his needs.

    Bush did not react to the economic problem very well, but he did try to avoid the CRA disaster. He did not effectively balance the budget either, but I don’t think that crashed the economy.

    Bush did suffer a catastrophic economic attack in 2001 and yet he didn’t whine about inheriting one. He just did his job and things were OK thanks largely to a tax cut based stimulus.

    The guy left a lot to be desired, but I wouldn’t blame him for the crash. Indirectly some of his flawed helped the dems take power in 2006 and I think that accelerated some problems thanks to their spending, but even then… this is not a strong case.

    Comment by Dustin (9538d2) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:34 pm

  45. The Republican Congress had deficits a small fraction of the current one.

    True. If I’m informed correctly when the GOP controlled the House and White House the average deficit was $150 billion. Which was alarmingly high, but compared to today? We’d be grateful if they produced a budget like that today.

    I do think ragman has a point about how interest is compounding the deficit problem. But the trillion dollar deficit is fixable.

    Comment by Dustin (9538d2) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:35 pm

  46. I do think ragman has a point about how interest is compounding the deficit problem.

    That was an accident. Prolly a typo. And clearly Bush’s fault.

    Comment by JD (516dcc) — 3/21/2012 @ 8:42 pm

  47. #38

    I about died laughing at that one.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/21/2012 @ 10:14 pm

  48. “I do think ragman has a point”

    A heavy duty toupee might cover it.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/21/2012 @ 10:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2739 secs.