The national debt in 1978 was around 700 billion,it was around a trillion when Carter left.Carter was responsible for around 300 billion When Ronnie took office the national debt was around a trillion,when Bush 1 left office it was around 4 trillion When Clinton came into office the debt was around 4 trillion,when Clinton left it around 5.6 trillion When Bush 2 came into office the debt was around 5.6 trillion when he left it was 10 trillion So Dems was responsible for 2 trillion of the national debt that we have to pay for Republicans were responsible for 8 trillion of the national debt and most of the 400- 500 billion a year in interest we pay on that national debt,but Republicans complain about democrats stealing from them Obama is currently spending like a drunken sailer,but lets not forget that he has to pay 500 billion a year in national debt interest and 2 wars that was left to him
Either you are delusional or you are just trolling, Obama is set to add 9 trillion to the national debt between 2010 and 2019, on top of more then 2.5 trillion he has already added, that puts him miles ahead of everyone else. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57M0WV20090825
On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion. There are two reasons why he differs from the CBO. On the difference between the $1.2 trillion and the $1.3 trillion, the Obama administration credited a small portion of spending on its watch to policies of the previous administration. The reason for this is that the federal government runs on a fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, so Bush and Obama technically split responsibility for 2009 spending. The large difference on the 10-year projection has to do with Bush administration tax cuts. The CBO creates its estimates based on current law, which means the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010 and everyone will start paying higher taxes in 2011 and going forward. The Obama administration, on the other hand, assumed in its baseline that those tax cuts would be renewed. Economists we spoke with -- Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, and Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- both said they believe the White House approach is more realistic because it assumes current policy will continue. So the CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. It does highlight, however, that when it comes to budget projections, people can have differences of opinion about what to include. In any budget projection there is room for interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assume for a baseline that the Bush tax cuts will continue. Obama's numbers are fairly solid, so we rate his statement Mostly True. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
Set to add,and add or 2 different things And again ,Obama has 500 billion of interest payments per year on the national debt ,over 9 years that is 4.5 trillion that he had nothing to do with
Our wars are very expensive. But if empire simply must be maintained, it is better that the resource conflict be on the extractee's soil, rather than ours.
Why dont you remind me of who created these 2 programs.... These 2 plus Obongo care will end up being what bankrupts the united states. Medicare As we reported last year, Medicare's financial difficulties come soonerâand are much more severeâthan those confronting Social Security. While both programs face demographic challenges, rapidly growing health care costs also affect Medicare. Underlying health care costs per enrollee are projected to rise faster than the earnings per worker on which payroll taxes and Social Security benefits are based. As a result, while Medicare's annual costs were 3.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008, or about three quarters of Social Security's, they are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and reach 11.4 percent of GDP in 2083. Social Security The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.4 percent of GDP in 2008 and is projected to increase to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2034, and then decline to about 5.8 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 2.00 percent of taxable payroll, up from 1.70 percent projected in last year's report. This increase is due primarily to the recession, slightly lower estimates for real GDP after the economy recovers in 2015, and faster reductions in mortality rates. Although the combined OASDI program passes our short-range test of financial adequacy, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund does not; DI program costs have exceeded tax revenue since 2005, and trust fund exhaustion is projected for 2020. In addition, OASDI continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2016, and will be sufficient to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037, after the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted.
I not sure about Medicaid,But as of today Social Security has a surplus(That presidents have been borrowing from) The fix for SS is a very small ss tax increase "Increase payroll tax rate Each 0.5% tax rate increase addresses 23% of shortfall. "
Why do these braindead assertions even continue? Why in the face of simple refuting arithmetic do people even try to make false assertions that somehow social and corporate welfare is affordable and defense is the culprit, and that we can afford more of this? total war tally ~ $2.5T social welfare unfunded obligations >>$40T Social welfare outlays 2009, pensions health and welfare: (federal, state local): $2.5T, 41% of total gov't spending War and the DoD ~$790B 13% of total govt spending Constitution says to provide for the common defense, and the GENERAL welfare, not individual welfare
you are an idiot, Social security costs are set to spiral out of control in the next 10 years, and cost us about 25 trillion or more over the next 75 years. Thus, $3.7 trillion is not what is needed over the next 75 years. It is what the federal government would have to invest right now to meet the Social Security's 75-year shortfall. Since the federal government isn't going to come up with an extra $3.7 trillion to invest tomorrow, a more useful figure in understanding the shortfall is the "cumulative cost." That is the cost to the taxpayers, over a 75-year period, of paying off all the treasury bonds in the Social Security trust fund plus meeting all the obligations of Social Security once the trust fund runs dry. Using data from the 2004 Trustees' report, that number is (sit down) $24.9 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars! That is an annual average of $332 billion extra that the taxpayers will have to pony up for Social Security. Even that doesn't tell the full story because included are the years 2004-2018 when Social Security is still running a surplus. After 2018, the annual Social Security deficit grows quickly: By 2022 taxpayers will have to pay almost $100 billion above what they will shell out in payroll taxes to meet all of Social Security's obligations. That will reach over $200 billion in 2027, over $300 billion in 2033, and $400 billion in 2046. If you are under 40 years of age, chances are quite good you will live to see all of those dates. http://spectator.org/archives/2005/01/19/the-true-cost-of-social-securi
The House of Representatives is ground zero for the budget. Why don't you compute those figures by who controlled the House? In eight years under Reagan the Federal deficits only widened a bit more than JUST THIS YEAR under Pelosi/Obama. And Obama has had less of an interest rate burden per dollar of debt than anyone. How easy do you think it was for mid-80's budgets when rates were 15%?