The National Debt on the day Barack Obama took office:
The National Debt as of yesterday, the end of Barack Obama’s first year in office:
That’s an increase of $ 1,695,230,543,439.88 , or 15.95% in just one year.
By contrast, George W. Bush, who I have raked over the coals in the past for the fact that he doubled the National Debt in eight years, saw the National Debt increased by a mere $ 250 billion in his first year in office.
You’re setting quite a pace there President Obama.
Debt figures obtained via the Treasury Department’s Debt To The Penny Calculator.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
A big slice of that debt held by the “public” is actually held by the Fed or by banks who borrowed money from the Fed to fund the debt purchase. Held by the public, eh?
January 20th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I believe that I might be confusing some numbers here, as well as some concepts but according to my sources:
As Reuters notes, “[a]mong the most expensive items were $154 billion for bailouts under the Troubled Asset Relief Program” and “$91 billion for the Fannie and Freddie bailouts,” both of which were approved under Bush.
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cited “the weakening economy” as a significant factor in the increased budget deficit. CBO stated, “Receipts in 2009 tumbled to $2,105 billion, a decrease of $419 billion, or 17 percent, from 2008. That year-over-year decline follows a small drop in revenues for fiscal year 2008 and is the largest annual percentage decline in revenues in more than seven decades.” CBO further noted that “[p]ayments for unemployment benefits in 2009 were more than 2½ times the amount paid in 2008, an increase of $73 billion. That jump was caused by substantially greater unemployment and increased benefits” and excludes the cost of the increased benefits provided by Obama’s Recovery act.
CBO stated in its August 25 Budget Update that “[t]he dramatic expansion of the deficit in 2009 (up from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2008) results from a projected rise in outlays of 24 percent (the largest percentage increase since 1952) and a drop in revenues of 17 percent from last year’s levels (the largest percentage drop since 1932). Those changes have largely been the result of the severe economic downturn and the fiscal impact of federal policies enacted in response.” By contrast, Bush and Clinton did not assume the presidency in the midst of a severe recession.
CBO projected outlays of $3.5 trillion for FY 2009 before Obama took office. On January 7, CBO stated in its Budget and Economic Outlook that “[w]ithout changes in current laws and policies, CBO estimates, outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009.”
In other words, President Obama isn’t responsible for some of the spending he is getting the blame for, and these are extraordinary times we are living in.
And didn’t President Bush inherit a surplus from Clinton (although I have heard that repeated, I don’t know how they calculated it)…
January 20th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Robert,
Every hear about the 2001 and 1991 recessions?
A little economic history lesson is in order.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Perhaps it is.
Can you explain the relevance of your reference? 91 was before Clinton…and the impact of the 2001 recession might pale in comparison to our current state in regards to impact on the overall economy …. That would be the part of the history lesson you can perhaps provide that compare/contrasts then and now and how even after ~7 years, President Bush hadn’t recovered apparently enough from his 2001 recession? Economics and history aren’t my strong suit, that’s why I go to source data.
Perhaps you have some links to data that can explain it, if you can’t….