Debt Up $6.666 Trillion Under Obama

You can't write stuff this good. Seriously, for those who believe that Obama is the Antichrist, this one should send chills up your spine.

The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.

When President Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt of the U.S. government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. As of Jan. 31, 2014, the latest day reported, the debt was $17,293,019,654,983.61—an increase of $6,666,142,606,070.53 since Obama’s first inauguration.

SOURCE

phantomjack
You can't write stuff this good. Seriously, for those who believe that Obama is the Antichrist, this one should send chills up your spine.

The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.

When President Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt of the U.S. government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. As of Jan. 31, 2014, the latest day reported, the debt was $17,293,019,654,983.61—an increase of $6,666,142,606,070.53 since Obama’s first inauguration.

SOURCE

Imagine where we would be if the debt increased at the same rate as when Reagan was in office! We'd be pushing towards $40T right now. The difference being, back then people either didn't pay attention, or knew that it was relativity to GDP that mattered, not an abstract number.

Our debt to GDP ratio is certainly not at its best, but also certainly not at its worst. For some perspective, a Honda Accord today costs more than a Corvette did when Reagan was elected, which was about 50x what a Model T cost around the turn of the century. A debt increase of 60% is a good reason to panic - unless GDP increases alongside it, which it has.

That said, I'd rather have a growing economy and shrinking debt, but I just don't see what the panic is about, other than lack of understanding of macroeconomics.

reply to post by phantomjack


The full amount is $6,666,142,606,070.53 but I guess it looks more frightening when it's truncated.

However, one could easily just sit and wait for the debt to reach that number and pounce on the opportunity, right?

The debt was going to reach this figure eventually. So, I am not going to let the little hairs raise on my neck just quite yet.

Besides, we all know that GW Bush is the Antichrist, right? /sarcasm

6666 is a different number then 666.
and this technically is just the number 6.
sheesh you people try so hard

This is mostly Bush's debt that Bush took off the books.

Obama put that debt back on the books and it counts as Obamas.

But once again it all goes back to Bush's unpaid wars.

CigaretteMan
This is mostly Bush's debt that Bush took off the books.

Obama put that debt back on the books and it counts as Obamas.

But once again it all goes back to Bush's unpaid wars.

Here's a chart based on actual numbers from the White House...

Can you show from other sources where all the hidden "Bush Debt" is

You may be on to something, but can we "see" it somewhere?

Now we know why they call them "dim ocrats" ...bad with numbers and the truth...what are these toe lickers gonna say when the next debt talks come up....very soon? it was Bush's fault? Please, that old bucket is kicked to oblivion. Understanding the left lives on sheer lies on top of lies, As an American schmuck, I wonder what the republicans strategy is, go along and increase spending and the debt? 666 is an arbitrary number in the grand scheme, but is there a ceiling with these temporary leaders???

Bisman
6666 is a different number then 666.
and this technically is just the number 6.
sheesh you people try so hard

edit on 4-2-2014 by Bisman because: (no reason given)

Ya, but it is so much fun to just speculate and reach deep into the hat to see what we can find and to stir up folks like you

CigaretteMan
This is mostly Bush's debt that Bush took off the books.

Obama put that debt back on the books and it counts as Obamas.

But once again it all goes back to Bush's unpaid wars.

Can you back that up with proof?

Never heard this one before.

reply to post by xuenchen


Thank you!

dogstar23

phantomjack
You can't write stuff this good. Seriously, for those who believe that Obama is the Antichrist, this one should send chills up your spine.

The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.

When President Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt of the U.S. government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. As of Jan. 31, 2014, the latest day reported, the debt was $17,293,019,654,983.61—an increase of $6,666,142,606,070.53 since Obama’s first inauguration.

SOURCE

Imagine where we would be if the debt increased at the same rate as when Reagan was in office! We'd be pushing towards $40T right now. The difference being, back then people either didn't pay attention, or knew that it was relativity to GDP that mattered, not an abstract number.

Our debt to GDP ratio is certainly not at its best, but also certainly not at its worst. For some perspective, a Honda Accord today costs more than a Corvette did when Reagan was elected, which was about 50x what a Model T cost around the turn of the century. A debt increase of 60% is a good reason to panic - unless GDP increases alongside it, which it has.

That said, I'd rather have a growing economy and shrinking debt, but I just don't see what the panic is about, other than lack of understanding of macroeconomics.

I certainly agree with the premise that debt can increase with income, however there is a bit of a problem here. With more and more people out of work and less manufacturing, what is the US producing to increase it's income base? We can't use the stock market as a measuring tape in this analysis because they produce nothing but debt. I have watched millions of jobs go overseas in the last 20 years and people in the US and Canada reduced to menial service jobs. That money stays in country/colony for local support, it does not get exported overseas as a product.

Cheers - Dave

I know this number is supposed to refer to the mark of the beast. But seriously, 6.666 Trillion? That is shameful. How does our leaders expect to pay this back? It's going to be hell if the people who loaned the US that decides they want it back. I heard there is a deal to hand over the national parks if it cannot be payed back. Can anyone verify this?

reply to post by xuenchen


An article from 2012, when the debt reached 5 trillion

www.examiner.com...

Of the alleged $5 trillion, $1.6 trillion is related to costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars. These were costs George W. Bush intentionally hid from the budget, and that President Obama allowed to be calculated when he assumed office.

Over $1.4 trillion was spent on interest payments caused by the already standing debt.

Also it has to be mentioned the budget of 2009 was submitted by Bush, not Obama.


You also have to consider the fact that Obama came to office right after the economic crisis hit. The revenues were over 400 billion less than Bush had during his last year, while the spending increased significantly, largely due to the amount of people needing welfare/unemployment checks, due to having lost their job due to the crisis. That is the point of such programs after all, you pay in while you work, so that when you lose your job, you would have the "insurance".

It is remarkable though, that Obama has managed to keep the spending pretty much the same for 5 years in a row. If you take a look at previous presidents or Bush from your numbers, for Bush the spending increased significantly during the years, in total from 1.8 trillion to 2.9 (3.5) trillion, while Obama has managed to keep the spending the same or even cut it. 3.45 is lower than the spending was in 08. Considering that making a government budget is very difficult and different from household budget, keeping the spending similar is very rare nowadays, especially considering the inflation.