US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama

The Solution

The Solution

Legend
Awards
5
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • Best Answer
US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama

Last week, total US debt was a meager $17,963,753,617,957.26. Two days later, as updated today, on Black Friday, total outstanding US public debt just hit a new historic level which probably would be better associated with a red color: as of the last work day of November, total US public debt just surpassed $18 trillion for the first time, or $18,005,549,328,561.45 to be precise, of which debt held by the public rose to $12,922,681,725,432.94, an increase of $32 billion in one day.

It also means that total US debt to nominal GDP as of Sept 30, which was $17.555 trillion, is now 103%. Keep in mind this GDP number was artificially increased by about half a trillion dollars a year ago thanks to the "benefit" of R&D and intangibles. Without said definitional change, debt/GDP would now be about 106%.

It also means that total US debt has increased by 70% under Obama, from $10.625 trillion on January 21, 2009 to $18.005 trillion most recently.

And now we wait for the US to become Spain, and add the estimated "contribution" from hookers and blow to GDP, once again pushing the total debt/GDP ratio below the psychological 100% level.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-01/total-us-debt-rises-over-18-trillion
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I would just want to add...Under Obama and Congress. The goverment as a whole is an infinite ses-pool for expansion of goverment and spending.
 
Ari Gold

Ari Gold

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Not to go off topic here, but I have to ask ax1 - what's the deal with the Madeleine Albright hotness in your signature?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Ari Gold

Ari Gold

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • Best Answer
Um, ok, I won't go there. LOL.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established


Perspective
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established


Another perspective, lol
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
A representation of increase during their term via percent is a better marker if you want to judge the presidents impact on debt.

Faulting them for the total amount is kinda misleading.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

Would you say they are equal since both of them ended with -90? or would you conclude the later guy did worst job managing the debt since it increased 80% as opposed to increasing 12.5% under the first guy
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

Would you say they are equal since both of them ended with -90? or would you conclude the later guy did worst job managing the debt since it increased 80% as opposed to increasing 12.5% under the first guy
I can conclude they both stink, hows that? lol Yeah I see what you are saying.
 
Piston Honda

Piston Honda

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
image-332068069.jpg



image-2084495462.jpg
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What do private sector jobs really mean? What kind of jobs are people really getting? Why should the president take credit for that anyways?

Also, a "Successful Presidency" can mean different things to different people, there are various other factors such as inflation, wars, constitutional practice, cost of living/taxes, bubble economics.. etc,,,,

Comparing Obama to Bush is only relevant to people who defend Bush...Keep in mind, some people dont like either of their economic policies. Not that you shouldnt post that.
 
Piston Honda

Piston Honda

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
What do private sector jobs really mean? What kind of jobs are people really getting? Why should the president take credit for that anyways? Also, a "Successful Presidency" can mean different things to different people, there are various other factors such as inflation, wars, constitutional practice, cost of living/taxes, bubble economics.. etc,,,, Comparing Obama to Bush is only relevant to people who defend Bush...Keep in mind, some people want them both arrested in prison and dont support either party.
What can be do right by you? You'll find anything to bitch about. Are you in any way just a bit racist?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What can be do right by you? You'll find anything to bitch about. Are you in any way just a bit racist?
I support Austrian Economics, the United States Constitution, and having a stable currency w/ gold and silver being the legal tender. If there is anything I can do, I can support movements such as the "Campaign for Liberty."

I dunno why your even throwing racism into the equation here. When it comes to politics, bitching is the norm, and being questioned, debated and challenged is the norm... thats what you get when you get into politics ....its endless but its alot of fun :)
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

Would you say they are equal since both of them ended with -90? or would you conclude the later guy did worst job managing the debt since it increased 80% as opposed to increasing 12.5% under the first guy
Good post
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

Would you say they are equal since both of them ended with -90? or would you conclude the later guy did worst job managing the debt since it increased 80% as opposed to increasing 12.5% under the first guy
What do you think of this Judo,

Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

They guy who starts at -80 and increases it to -90 has during that time the Federal Reserve print 80 billion dollars out of thin air monthly dumping it into the economy just to pump it up and make it look better (while devaluing the dollar) and the other guy didnt?

Can we really still conclude the later guy did the worst job managing the debt?
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What do you think of this Judo,

Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

They guy who starts at -80 and increases it to -90 has during that time the Federal Reserve print 80 billion dollars out of thin air monthly dumping it into the economy just to pump it up and make it look better (while devaluing the dollar) and the other guy didnt?

Can we really still conclude the later guy did the worst job managing the debt?
2 things

I see the angle you are playing here and understand it a little but it is a) not really relevant and b) we prolly dont agree on the impact of that

Meaning, the de-value of the dollar means a lot more to you then it does me. Not that it isn't important or an issue that we should address, it is just not as high on my hierarchy of concerns as opposed to other problems. It is more of an issue to you and that's cool, I can respect that (I actually like some of your political post despite not agreeing with it because they come across as genuine and not really partisan talking points). I am not an economist so the de-value of the dollar issue isn't really on my radar since it would require me to understand some level of global economics in order to really weigh in on it and I don't have the time or desire to learn that.

That said, it is kinda irrelevant here. One can argue that it does play a role in debut since if the value drops then debt will increases without actually increasing so in a way it does play a part but the specifics of this thread appears to be an attempt to point the finger at our president for raising the debut and make it seem like it is raising uncontrollably under him. My contribution was to add perspective. The debut may seem like it is increasing this way until you compare it to how the debut has been managed in the past. In this comparison it kinda looses that OMG factor since the increases really isn't that much. So while the de-value issue does factor into our debut, in this specific thread it is kinda off topic.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
What do you think of this Judo,

Lets say you have one guys who starts with -80 and in x years it increases to -90 and another guy that starts with -50 and in the same time spans it increases to -90

They guy who starts at -80 and increases it to -90 has during that time the Federal Reserve print 80 billion dollars out of thin air monthly dumping it into the economy just to pump it up and make it look better (while devaluing the dollar) and the other guy didnt?

Can we really still conclude the later guy did the worst job managing the debt?
2 things

I see the angle you are playing here and understand it a little but it is a) not really relevant and b) we prolly dont agree on the impact of that

Meaning, the de-value of the dollar means a lot more to you then it does me. Not that it isn't important or an issue that we should address, it is just not as high on my hierarchy of concerns as opposed to other problems. It is more of an issue to you and that's cool, I can respect that (I actually like some of your political post despite not agreeing with it because they come across as genuine and not really partisan talking points). I am not an economist so the de-value of the dollar issue isn't really on my radar since it would require me to understand some level of global economics in order to really weigh in on it and I don't have the time or desire to learn that.

That said, it is kinda irrelevant here. One can argue that it does play a role in debut since if the value drops then debt will increases without actually increasing so in a way it does play a part but the specifics of this thread appears to be an attempt to point the finger at our president for raising the debut and make it seem like it is raising uncontrollably under him. My contribution was to add perspective. The debut may seem like it is increasing this way until you compare it to how the debut has been managed in the past. In this comparison it kinda looses that OMG factor since the increases really isn't that much. So while the de-value issue does factor into our debut, in this specific thread it is kinda off topic.
You know what, I think I may have misread/understood your point.

Are you saying the lack of debut is artificial due to the printing of money? Like if we didn't print the money our debt would be higher?

If so, any citation to this printing under Obama and also the frequency of printing money or if printing is typically done under specific circumstances? A timeline dating back to past few president of printing money would be helpful.
 
Piston Honda

Piston Honda

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
10846307_10152553493221545_4124809430980864538_n.png
 
DAdams91982

DAdams91982

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Man, the race card... right out the gate. That seems to be the goto these days if there is criticism of President Obama.

I don't know why you people are comparing Red and Blue when they are absolutely both in the same. It take more than a term to realize an economic impact of a president. And what is really funny, is everyone attributing policy creation to a president rather than the legislative branch.

But talking about the debt.. wasnt it our fearless leader who completely lambasted a 4T debt increase back in 06 as completely irresponsible and unpatriotic?

Saying percentage of increase is what matters is a bit short sighted as well. Obama is on track to almost double the debt increase in 6 years as the 8 years of Bush, all while not fronting two wars anymore. Of course funneling that much money into social buckets are going to artificially inflate our numbers. ObamaCare single handedly propped up an entire industry that Obama himself criticized as blood suckers. What I am afraid for is the day the tit runs dry, and eventually it will have to.

Overall there is no difference in sides. Bush created the Patriots act, Obama expanded that big time and opened holes to allow it to be applied to American Citizens. The NDAA was under his watch, he signed that piece of garbage.

So all you people who glorify our Current, previous, previous previous, previous previous previous administrations are products of the media from one side or another. No amount of infographics will help when our economy is no longer propped up artificially. Quantitative Easing will eventually stop when someone with cajonas actually is elected, a statesmen and not a corporate sellout. QE is single handedly propping up the stock market. When that stops, it all stops.
 
Piston Honda

Piston Honda

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I love lamp
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You know what, I think I may have misread/understood your point.

Are you saying the lack of debut is artificial due to the printing of money? Like if we didn't print the money our debt would be higher?

If so, any citation to this printing under Obama and also the frequency of printing money or if printing is typically done under specific circumstances? A timeline dating back to past few president of printing money would be helpful.
Yeah...I meant that point there in your second sentence above, although throwing the inflation you were addressing in your first response is an additional factor. I dont think the inflation is as significant to the overall economic #'s but I do get upset my life savings and the cost of life are also effected. Its like taxing the population without officially taxing anyone.

In regards to Obama terms vs previous administrations, Im specifically referring to Quantitative Easing. There wouldnt be a timeline dating back the past few presidents since its a fairly new central banking policy that started in Japan, then Europe and finally the USA at the time of our last big crisis. There were different stages we have gone through since 08, one part that comes to mind is Q3 with 40billion being pumped monthly for about 2 years which eventually expanded to 85billion but it finally ended (or scaled back, Im not sure) just a few months ago.

There is much more to it, Im honestly am by far an expert at understanding it and you will get different viewpoint from different experts from Keynesian to the Austrian school, but yes the point is that there is much more to think about before people (including myself) should come to conclusions on which president has a more successful economic term. In this case, it just appears the economy has been artificially manipulated due to Quantitative Easing and the positive #'s vs previous presidents really dont tell the whole story how those #'s were created.

Hope that made sense, lol
 

Similar threads


Top