$20 trillion man

[townpete]

Take a bow liberals, you own this as well.
 
 
When President Obama signs into law the new two-year budget deal Monday, his action will bring into sharper focus a part of his legacy that he doesn’t like to talk about: He is the $20 trillion man.
 
Mr. Obama’s spending agreement with Congress will suspend the nation’s debt limit and allow the Treasury to borrow another $1.5 trillion or so by the end of his presidency in 2017. Added to the current total national debt of more than $18.15 trillion, the red ink will likely be crowding the $20 trillion mark right around the time Mr. Obama leaves the White House.
 
When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

 

[Ifly2]

Yup,


Did that all by his little own self

The GOP controlled house had nothing to do with that either

Just like the money we borrow to pay the interest on W's $2 Trillion and counting experiment in exporting democracy to people who have no clue what to,do with it and do not want it has nothing to do with it

 

[Ifly2]

Funny funny man

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Yup,


Did that all by his little own self

The GOP controlled house had nothing to do with that either

Just like the money we borrow to pay the interest on W's $2 Trillion and counting experiment in exporting democracy to people who have no clue what to,do with it and do not want it has nothing to do with it

Bush didn’t borrow money to pay the interest on money borrowed to pay for the Iraq war any more than Obama is borrowing money to pay the interest on money borrowed to pay for the unconstitutional wars in Libya or Syria.
 
You simply don’t know how it works, funny man.  

 

[Dog Wonder]

Funny funny man

Not funny Haha, funny stupid.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Not funny Haha, funny stupid.

Who presses the keys for you? Your mother or your nurse?

 

[Ifly2]

Well, partially correct

W borrowed the actual money (from our "frenemies" the Chinese mostly...) to finance his epic failure in converting people. (We habe a name for that....)

Then we did begin, almost immediately, borrowing more money to pay the interest due on what he borrowed.

You remember, fight two wars, tax cuts for the rich, y'all just go shopping, leave the driving to us, and oh, yeah, spy on your neighbors...

 

[Ifly2]

Good little tories

 

[Dog Wonder]

Who presses the keys for you? Your mother or your nurse?

My mother doesn't, don't need a nurse.  Maybe you should stop being a parrot for a party who ties each others shoelaces together and can't figure out why they fall on their faces.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Well, partially correct

W borrowed the actual money (from our "frenemies" the Chinese mostly...) to finance his epic failure in converting people. (We habe a name for that....)

Then we did begin, almost immediately, borrowing more money to pay the interest due on what he borrowed.

You remember, fight two wars, tax cuts for the rich, y'all just go shopping, leave the driving to us, and oh, yeah, spy on your neighbors...

Actually, Bush borrowed the money from the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of about $710 billion to fund not only the Iraq war but to the financial bailout of 2008 (just like Obama did). Also note that Bush added $1.6 trillion in bonds to the Social Security Trust Fund between 2000 and 2008.  If we characterize the entire trust fund system as the government borrowing from Social Security, Bush is by no means the only debtor.
 
You remember, continue to fight two wars then add two more wars on top of that, leave the driving to us and oh, continue spying on your neighbors. Not much difference between then and now.

 

[Ifly2]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/03/facebook-posts/did-george-w-bush-borrow-social-security-fund-war-/

 

[Ifly2]

The United States federal government has spent or obligated 4.4 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.

This total omits many other expenses, such as the macroeconomic costs to the US economy; the opportunity costs of not investing war dollars in alternative sectors; future interest on war borrowing; and local government and private war costs.

The current wars have been paid for almost entirely by borrowing. This borrowing has raised the US budget deficit, increased the national debt, and had other macroeconomic effects, such as raising consumer interest rates. Unless the US immediately repays the money borrowed for war, there will also be future interest payments. We estimate that interest payments could total over $7 trillion by 2053.

Spending on the wars has involved opportunity costs for the US economy. Although military spending does produce jobs, spending in other areas such as health care could produce more jobs. Additionally, while investment in military infrastructure grew, investment in other, nonmilitary, public infrastructure such as roads and schools did not grow at the same rate.

Finally, federal war costs exclude billions of dollars of state, municipal, and private war costs across the country – dollars spent on services for returned veterans and their families, in addition to local homeland security efforts.

 

[Ifly2]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/us-public-defrauded-hidden-cost-iraq-war

When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.

The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it.

 

[Ifly2]

Really should read the whole article from The Guardian

If you don't like those, there are dozens or hunfreds more, from reputable, independent, non-agenda driven sources

 

[Ifly2]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html


NEW YORK To pay for World War II, Americans bought savings bonds and put extra notches in their belts. President Harry Truman raised taxes and cut nonmilitary spending to pay for the Korean conflict. During Vietnam, the US raised taxes but still watched deficits soar.

But to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has used its credit card, counting on the Chinese and other foreign buyers of its debt to pay the bills.