A common tactic of Obama and his defenders is to suggest that the debt and deficit were non-issues until the presidency of George W. Bush.
Obama in Annandale yesterday:
For a long time, Washington acted like deficits didn’t matter. A lot of folks promised us a free lunch. So I think everybody needs to recall, we had a surplus back in 2000, 11 short years ago, but then we cut taxes for everybody, including millionaires and billionaires. We fought two wars and we created a new and expensive prescription drug program, and we didn’t pay for any of it.
But it’s worth noting that the national debt – as in the total public debt owed – increased on Clinton’s watch, and like all recent presidents, Clinton left the country with more than a trillion dollars deeper in debt than when he began — even with the late 1990s economic boom.
According to U.S. Treasury figures at Debt to the Penny, on January 20, 1993, as Bill Clinton took office, the total outstanding public debt was $4.1 trillion. On January 19, 2001, that same figure had increased to $5.7 trillion.
As I’ve noted before, the debt during Bush’s eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That’s bad; that’s basically $610 billion per year. But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush.
Bush’s record on increasing the national debt is bad and Obama’s is worse. Clinton’s record is “best,” but it’s not clear that most Americans would characterize increasing the national debt by $200 billion per year as “good.”
Another point that doesn't get mentioned nearly often enough is this.
Not only did the debt increase during the Clinton years, it increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR during his Presidency.
Stuff that in your "we had a balanced budget in 1998" meme.
Yes, I know it's possible to balance the budget and yet have the debt increase, but that's all math games. If you discount game playing and using tricks that further mortgaged the future, we never had a balanced budget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseany surpluses during Clintons years can also be credited to the GOP Congress. You know the people that actually have to write, vote on and pass the actual budget ... until Nancy the Hun took over ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe public will not understand this, as the majority are mathematically illiterate. The debt is an exponential curve (with that one statement I've eliminated at least 75% from understanding). When we take on more debt, and dont pay off the old the interest on that is compounded along with the principal. It's not just a static linear increase. Saying we are at a tipping point is an understatement, we're playing chicken with a train, and we all know how that will end.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI honestly think that one of the reasons Obama seems so challenged in office is that he is also a mathematical illiterate. Very early in the administration he was cut off by his aides, but we have a video of him pontificating about profit earnings ratios in the stock market. I think Obama, as Barone says, can't do the details very well. He is also a product of a fine left wing education. Which leads to the point that nobody seems to notice that the left has gained a lot of power by keeping a lot of people ignorant whether the young, or minorities in democratic strongholds. It is much easier to talk like Obama does when your audience has had a fine public school education. How many jobs in this country have been pushed off shore not so much because CEOs are evil but because the people off shore are competent and educated, like in Ireland, India, Hong Kong etc. whereas our kids think they are the smartest in the world and don't know the difference between they're, their, and there, in their own language...Most people, and college kids in the U.S. would flunk the 8th grade graduation test from 1896..fur shure....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't like several things about this article.
1. It states the figures from the day a President takes office until the day he leaves. The first year of his Presidency is on the last Presidents budget, so you gave each President the last guys last number and dropped their actual last year number, so your numbers are all wrong from the start.
2. Clinton did not at any point ever have a surplus, FactCheck.Org is part of the Annenberg Group. They do a decent job, but they do in fact have a liberal bent to the degree they promote these types of issues in favor of Democrats and get away with it due to generally being fair.
I on the other hand do play math games, and I know how and why they arrive at their figures that Democrats believe to be true and many Republicans as well, but credit Republican Congress. If you look at any chart of our annual debt, there is no year in which it decreased under Clinton, as he spent more than he took in each year, and it is reflected in said charts. However, FactCheck.Org that shows 2 years with surpluses takes the liberty of not counting what the government owes Social Security, as they claim that is not debt, but merely IOU's from the government to itself. This is obviously wrong and lame. If that were true, we can dismiss the billions owed to SS every year, but they do this ONLY for Clinton. There was never ever a surplus and Bush never ever inherited one. I will say, Clinton got close one year, but still had a deficit of 10's of billions.
3. Who ran Congress when Clinton was President? Who ran it under Bush when the vast majority of that deficit occurred? Who ran it under Obama?
Yeah, the rest of the story, Republican Congress spends less money, Democrat Congress spends like drunk sailors. It doesn't matter who the President is, the Congress dictates the spending consistently. Obama and Clinton are both Democrats, what's Obama's excuse? His budget problem is he had a Democrat Congress, had he won with a Republican Congress we would be calling him the 2nd Clinton!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is so funny how people can play with numbers.
Under ANY reasonable review of how much the increase in national debt increased under various Presidents, Clinton comes out best in recent history.
Reagan came in with the economy in bad shape, it got worse and it got a lot better.
Clinton came in with the economy in OK shape and it got better until very close to the end of his terms.
Bush 43 came in towards the end of the Clinton boom and got hurt by the recession that was just starting under Clinton and the economy improved until near the end when it fell off the cliff.
Obama started with the worst economy in 75 years. It has gotten better but it is still close to the worst economy in 75 years.
Having said all this, it is just foolish to look at the raw numbers of the debt and deficit without looking at the reasons behind them.
Obama massively increased the debt during his term. Why twist the facts to make Obama look worse??? There may be some reasons for it not being as bad as the raw numbers appear BUT
OBAMA'S RECORD ON THE INCREASE OF THE DEBT IS TERRIBLE!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse