CBS News' Mark Knoller published an item this week, arguing that President Obama has added more to the national debt in three years than President George W. Bush did in eight years. The piece proved to be wildly popular with conservatives, which is a shame -- Knoller's piece is misleading and largely inaccurate.
As the CBS reporter sees it, the evaluation is a simple matter of arithmetic. Bush added about $5 trillion to the debt during his tenure, and the debt has gone by a nearly-identical figure under Obama. Ergo, based on the postings from Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department, the observation is sound.
But it's not. Knoller doesn't mention, for example, that the debt increase "on President Obama's watch" includes a $1.3 trillion deficit that was sitting on his desk the day he took office, left there by Bush/Cheney. It also fails to explain to the policies behind deficits. Consider this chart, for example, published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
For that matter, it also matters which administration's policies are driving the debt. Here's another image, put together by the New York Times, which provides context Knoller's piece did not.
New York TImes
And even after we take all of these facts under consideration, there’s another angle that often goes overlooked: must this additional debt necessarily be deemed a bad thing?
Looking back over the last several years, we can say definitively that Republicans were entirely responsible for the nation’s fiscal mess. But given the larger circumstances, we can also say with confidence that it makes a lot of sense for the Obama administration to run large deficits: he inherited a brutal recession that required expensive federal intervention and led to low revenues, as well as two ongoing foreign wars, which his predecessor never even tried to pay for. Of course the president is running large deficits; trying to eliminate them now would make an economic catastrophe even worse.
Knoller’s piece doesn’t provide any of this information. It’s a bit of a mess.
Leave a Comment:
And THIS IS WHY the economy is such a MESS. The GOP and it's supporters simply do not UNDERSTAND how economics work. They clearly don't invest or do their own taxes. Compounding interest? Not interested. Fools...and hoping you are too! Because you know, they are the smartest guys in the room...
Then I suggest that we change the room! Vote out the GOP in November, they're bad @mathematics!
Hey GOP...Talk is cheap...it takes real taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street and go to war for Haliburton profits.
The continuing attempts by conservatives to shift blame away from themselves to the current President for their own policies is like a wreckless driver crashing a friend's car, bringing it to a mechanic, and then blaming the mechanic because his car won't start...
...and then asking to borrow the car again after it's fixed!!!
trying to eliminate them now would make an economic catastrophe even worse.
And that is just what the Republicans are advocating: eliminate the debt now.
Every time the government cuts spending it cuts jobs. The only way the government or a private company can create jobs is to spend money. People want work, but they also want to be paid. Every dollar the government spends goes to someone who can then spend it.
I agree, but for the waste. Let's keep an eye on the stupid stuff and put a stop to it (we can start in the Defense Dept with those projects the DOD doesn't want and won't use and then go from there.)
would have been nice if knoller even tried to name a single policy of Obama's that contributed to the debt. With bush it's easy-- Wars, tax cuts, Part D, etc.. With Obama theyre left with the stimulus and solyndra. neither of which accounts for much at all. Which leaves us with the question you answer, Steve-- is there something else that's increasing the debt. You'd think a reporter would cover those basic questions in any article-- that he does not is pathetic.
I don't think people understand that Obama hasn't even passed $1.5trillion in spending and that he is slowly closing the deficit. Now we can certainly debate whether we think that $1.5 trillion was spent wisely. We can certainly debate if we had spent that $1.5 trillion, in say tax cuts, would that have been money better spent than in stimulus spending? We can argue that Obama has to burden some of the debt from continuing the Bush tax cuts (they are now, certainly, Obama tax cuts). But we can't blame the President for debt or deficit spending that isn't the direct result of his policies. And this is where I, personally, get annoyed. I have no problem debating issues sincerely w/ conservatives, but only if we're talking about the facts. I said this last night: when you make up lies and then want to talk about those lies that isn't a debate. When you misrepresent the facts and then want to discuss terms based on that misrepresentation that is not a debate. When you purposefully mislead people and then want to discuss the thing you've mislead them to believe that is not a debate. I have no problem w/ debating problem, but I do have a problem w/ propaganda and pointless abuse of the public trust.
Very good points Mouzer, all of them. I guess I am very frustrated that everyone just thinks overspending by the astronomical figure of a Trillion is no big deal. Adding a Trillion plus every year is now becoming the norm. People get worked up over the cost of healthcare and gas prices, but just look away when we add 1,000 billion to our IOU kitty...year after year. Debate does not pay a single dime of that.
Thanks, Mouzer - You really hit the nail on the head. All the Fox "News" idiots just repeat the same false statements made on Fox and think they have an argument. The other day one of them said to me (after I pointed out that 21 million Americans don't have the ID required to vote in many states and there were 72 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in a 5 year period in which over 300 million votes were cast) He said, "If you want to talk about voter fraud, I have one word for you: "Acorn"". Then the guy gets pissed that I asked him to prove a connection (and did so without congeniality) - since there isn't one. I said, "Please, in the future, make sure your argument is supported by at least one fact." I find it difficult to be nice when someone - however nice the guy is - repeats one of the many hundreds of Fox's smear campaigns right to my face. (And this guy actually said "I prefer to get my news "fair and balanced."!)
That is why I've given up on even trying to change the mind of any Fox "News" fans. If they have been sitting there in front of their TVs and saw the Death Panel BS, the Shirley Sherrod smear campaign, and all the smear campaigns of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Oreilly and are still parked in front of that TV watching Fox - forget it.
Well Skip the problem is you have to cut through all the bull@!$%# before you can start talking about things honestly. It's the dishonesty that politicians feed off of in order to avoid having to be accountable. As i said it's completely fine for someone on the right to dispute the idea that spending 1.5$ trillion is good. It's also fine to say that they would've liked a trillion dollars spent on tax cuts, even. But that is not the debate going on. The debate is that Obama has added 5 trillion in debt over 3 years. Hell I am sure that there is even a liberal argument about all the debt Bush added, although for the most part the left doesn't seem to want to blame the recession's debt on anyone from the perspective of that debt was unavoidable once the recession started. You can certainly discuss what caused the recession and how you avoid another one and as I've said before none of our debt busting measures have any purpose what so ever if we can't avoid a recession for at least 10 years (which the United States hasn't been able to do since the 70's). The whole problem though, it seems to me at least, boils down to the fact that we're too busy spouting off talking points (or the left is too busy getting caught up on having to debunk those talking points) to actually accomplish anything. If people would just agree no more bull@!$%#, we'll debate honestly- then at least we could start the conversation as to how we get our debt paid off. But the conversation can't start until the bull@!$%# stops.
I agree. What Knoller said was irresponsible. He gave no explanation or analysis. I guess some people don;t understand the deficit is the result of both past and present policies. Who cares who did what. Discuss solutions, not graphs placing blame. I believe this is the result of more and more people relying on cable news or the internet for info. How can you possibly form an opinion by listening to a 3 minute segment where the interviewer is either talking to someone of like mind, or, if not, shouting down the guest who may disagree.
In order to have an intelligent debate one must: a)understand the issue; b) understand the opposing side's view; c) be articulate. Until people expand their sources of news and issues, no intelligent debate is possible
Why does everything have to be Obama? (as relates to money). Only the Congress has the right and ability to set monied law. The President can take a position and make suggestions, but it's ultimately up to Congress to make it happen .... or not. Congress are the ones to have to take responsibility for it. They pass tax cuts, they approve budgets (after adding all their many amendments). Why aren't we saying: "Congress' tax cuts" and not "Obama tax cuts". ??? Same with the Affordable Care Act. They can call it Obamacare all they want .. it's not the same legislation he sent up to The Hill. They doctored it plenty before passing it. Let's put the blame and the credit where it belongs (and that can be shared, Congress/President, too). Just sayin'
Fair point Dirk. Technically speaking the Congress is far more powerful than the POTUS. So you would be correct to say that. I would not oppose this. I just ask that whichever we choose we be consistent. If we're going to call them the Bush Tax Cuts then we have to call them the Obama Tax Cuts. If we call them the Congressional Tax Cuts of 2003 then we have to call them the Congressional Tax Cuts of 2010. I'm OK w/ either, but since we're going w/ the former atm that's why I chose the language that I did. But I will consider that in my next postings since it's a more than fair criticism and a factually accurate one as well. Thanks ;-)
At this point who cares. The debt IS $15 Trillion and climbing. We all know why...OK??? Now lets get rid of it. At this point very drastic measures have got to be put in place including tax increases (on more then just the millionaires by the way) AND spending decreases. This is not trigonomety...it's simple math. We are still spending more than we have every year. I get really tired with the blame game. It sounds like "well, he started it!" that we used to hear as kids. Yes, Obama didn't start it, but he is not helping either.
But of course we will "kick the very very large can down the road" and wait for a financial miracle that will somehow get rid of the 15,000 Billion we owe. I would even be happy at this point to get rid of half of the debt - 7.5 Trillion - but even that is nearly impossible. Yeah, keep putting up graphs showing that the former POTUS dumped all this debt on the U.S. (never mind that we are still over spending by $1 trillion plus every year since he left office). That will solve everything....
Both parties have offered plans that will slowly pay down the debt over time (which, for the record, is the only way to do it). But the problem is will our Congress be able to stand beside these plans long enough to allow their debt cutting measures to take place and to begin healing our national debt? There is no reason why we couldn't pay off all 15 trillion of our debt in 20 years....but the question is would our Congress allow us to actually accomplish as much? The problem is if you offer a plan like the Paul plan (cutting 11$ trillion in spending) it will cause such catastrophic cuts to the nation that you'll more than likely cause us to go into another great depression. And that will likely explode the debt if it doesn't destroy the nation altogether (from inflation). There is a reason why most politicians will not offer deep cuts that take place immediately. This isn't just about kicking the can down the road. It's because if you make changes too suddenly you can cause the economy to collapse. I don't think people fully understand that latter part. Dramatic cuts to spending will not necessarily equate to dramatic savings. Just as increases in spending do not automatically equate to adding to the national debt. It's about fiscality, not about bumper stickers. The biggest hurdle we face towards this problem is w/ our Congress and to this extent both parties are guilty.
I wish you were right Mouzer. The plan to pay off 15 Trilli0n in twenty years means you would have to have $750 Billion in surplus for every one of those 20 years (on average). Does anyone seriously believe we can have a $750 Billion suplus for 20 straight years. And if this Biblical sized miracle would happen, who believes the politicians would not take chunks off it for "new" programs. I wish it would happen, but come on, $750 Billion a year surplus for 20 straight years????
Well not exactly. Over a ten year period we will no longer have a deficit and will be running a multi-billion dollar deficit, although you are correct that it's not going to be near a trillion each year. But you have to remember that you're not paying off 100% of the national debt. At least $3 trillion in debt has to stay in existence as part of our rolling credit. If you paid any more of this off you'd actually cause the economy to collapse. Remember that governments as machines run on debt. Debt inherently is not a bad thing or the issue- it's when you pass the rolling credit line that debt becomes an issue (which we've obviously done). Our goal is to pay off $12 trillion. We will save a trillion by the end of Obama's presidency (assuming a second term) and we will have paid off about 2 trillion (assuming all of the planned reductions take place- if we were to go to war in Syria or Iran (or god forbid both) OR if the economy doesn't recover OR some combination thereof then this 2 trillion estimate is completely voided). That will leave us w/ 9 trillion to go over the next decade.
But, as I said, this is assuming a couple of things:
A- No additional spending measures will be undertaken. So this would mean no more wars or no more natural disaster relief funds. If such events did occur (war or natural disaster) then we would have to increase tax cuts to compensate for the increased spending in order to keep the budget on aim for the time period. While I would be all in favor of a temporary tax increase to relieve a disaster like Hurricane Katrina, in order for this to be pragmatic that would mean we'd have to rely on our Congress to have the wherewithall to a. pass the tax increase and then b. repeal it immediately once the crises was paid for. Maybe I'm cynical, but I have my doubts
B- Which pretty much leads us to B: That Congress would have the flexibility to implement a tax increase if needed and to repeal it as needed. That Congress would not be constantly fiddling w/ the tax code or regulatory thereby costing the economy more money or reducing the revenues taken in
C- That no recessions will happen
To this extent I completely understand your pessimism Skip. I was never meaning to imply that all those if's I just listed aren't huge 'if's.' I suppose we just differ on the fact that I don't think they're impossible to accomplish....just highly difficult
Sorry that should read
If such events did occur (war or natural disaster) then we would have to increase tax revenue
No additional spending measures will be undertaken
Mouser...this comment from you first (A) assumption will NEVER happen, thereby negating the rest of you very big and overly optimistic "ifs". Seriously....no additional spending measures? How in the hell would Congress and the President payback their donors??? But....assuming you want to retire ONLY 12 Trillion (12,000 Billion) over those 20 years you mention:
1. I still can't believe we are talking about 12 TRILLION that we owe.
2. It will still take $600 Billion in surpluses for 20 straight years to do it. Maybe, just maybe there would be a few years with surpluses, but considering the way the world goes with wars and natural disasters ,there is now way the U.S. will ever have that long of a sustained surplus budget... NO WAY.
As I see it, it was Bush AND Congress that created the massive debt and the debt/economy problems. We can't expect Obama to fix it alone. The House and Senate have the ultimate duty to vote legislation to do it. And they don't. Over and over and over again, they slink off and cheat on it. They wail and complain and threaten, but they don't do it. Obama can plead, dodge and weave, pressure them, but in the end it's our elected congressional officials that can make it happen. Until we elect more of them that can display some real valiant and daring guts ... we ain't goin' nowhere. Even the "moderate" Collins and Snowe from Maine (presumed Republican moderates) have been largely towing the party line on this stuff. So now it's us that have to be daring and valiant and do the right thing on election day. I hain't holdin' my breath on this one.
Skip it isn't outside of the realm of possibility. As I said I understand your pessimism. But it is entirely possible. When I state we're only talking about 9 trillion I'm not saying 'only' there to imply it isn't a lot of money. Good lord can you imagine what you and I would do w/ that kind've cash?! Lol- yeah I am well aware it's a lot of cash. My point was it's not as bad or as impossible as it seems. Now can it become impossible? Yes. If we go into another war, if we don't raise taxes.....there are a lot of 'ifs'. That's why I listed them. I don't believe that they are impossible, but I do believe that they will require a lot of sacrifice to be made achievable. The question is do we- as voters- hold our representatives to these plans or do we not? A plan like that of Rand Paul's will not end up cutting the debt in the long run- it'll end up exploding it. There is no way to make immediate cuts to the debt that will not end up adding to the debt over a 20 year period. So our goal has to be cutting spending little by little and raising revenues by leaps and bounds over time. Otherwise we will end up in another depression and w/ a dollar so inflated we pretty much can't purchase anything. I don't think people fully appreciate just how delicate of a balance this is. You can't go at the federal debt w/ a hammer. Do that and it'll explode our now 15 trillion debt into something like 35 trillion. However I do believe Congress can be held accountable. I haven't yet lost that little bit of hope. So to this extent I would firmly disagree that it isn't possible.
Gee, if the mainstream media is so liberal, why did they do a misleading piece that obviously distorts the facts to make President Obama look bad?
I am shocked! Absolutely shocked! That a reporter for the Corporately Owned Media would make a report that provides a misleading interpretation that is negative toward the democrat candidate running against Mittens the corporately owned candidate of the 1/10 of 1%ers.
Our leaders have created a new form of treason. welcome to America people get used to being owned by the debt created and those who are above it being the upper class.
To balance the budget you need a mix of slowing or cutting expenditures and increased revenue. You can't do one without the other. Revenue has to exceed expenditures to pay down the debt. What we don't need is the war in Afghanistan because we have taken out Osama bin Laden and his terrorists and that's all we can do. We haven't taken out the leaders of the Taliban nor does it look like we are likely to. No one has ever been able to fix Afghanistan and neither can we. Afghanistan has to determine what kind of a country they want to be and we can help them if it serves our interests and theirs. There are plenty of destabilized areas of the world for terrorists to set up their camps. When a stable government supports terrorism then all of the other countries in the world should refuse to work with them economically and diplomatically. The world should shun countries that support terrorism and destroy terrorist camps when they can through quick pin point strikes authorized by the United Nations. Military spending should be set to meet today's conflicts with the eyes on tomorrow. We need armed forces large enough to protect our interests and no more. We don't need to maintain a standing armed force strong enough to invade other countries. We have to keep our reserves and the ability to call them up when we see this kind of threat is developing in the world. We have to keep our eyes in the sky and our ability to deliver a decisive military blow that gives time to call up our troops if needed. But most military problems today involve small groups of interrelated terrorists and not standing armies. Countries like Russia and China who still have large standing armies are not a threat to anyone and their economies are so intertwined with the world economy that they would crash if they they posed any threat at all. We have to develop a military response to terrorists that does not bankrupt us because terrorist arms cost pennies while our weapons cost millions of dollars. We have to develop effective and inexpensive weapons that eliminate the terrorist threat while maintaining our expensive military might at a cost efficient level.
As far as dealing with entitlements the basic structures of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs need to be maintained, but our health care system needs to be reorganized and integrated and health records need to be centralized as to keep fraud and waste at a minimum. Health records for each individual need to be centralized from birth to death but be kept private and used for no other purpose but to deliver cost efficient health care. Law enforcement and employers should have no access to these health records. The records are being kept to provide continuous and cost efficient well care to the individual where ever the citizen lives in the world. An individuals health problems could be identified a treatment program devised for the lifetime of the individual. This plan would be between the individual and his health care providers. All health care providers and facilities would have to be within the system which would be administered in such away as to take into account all of their concerns and input. How this system is developed will be a matter of political discussion as to who does what. But it will be regulated by federal legislation with responsibility delegated as the political system decides.
Today only the rich can pick their doctors. For the rest of us the doctors we get depends upon if doctors accept our insurance company or we can find an insurance policy we can afford that the doctor we want accepts. It also depends upon if the doctor is accepting new patients. So lets dispense with the fiction that the current system allows anyone but the rich to pick their own doctors. In smaller rural communities people have few doctors to pick from and are stuck with buying the insurances that the doctors will accept. Is limited choice really a choice?
michelle ~ you say: "we haven't taken out the Taliban leaders." I beg to differ. We've taken out dozens of them, but that won't work. We're trying to change a culture -- that's the hardest thing you can ever, ever do. The very hardest. Just think about how hard your partner tried to change you and you him/her after you got together --- and 1/2 completely fail (think Divorce here!) It's a fool's errand to even think about doing "nation building" when it involves trying to alter centuries of a practiced art (that's what it is over there). I maintain that it would take at least 5-10 generations. You need to have ALL those currently "trained" in the mores and practices of the country, be dead and buried (most from old age) and the youngsters brought up the new 'ways', before you can even hope, or even dream, of effecting much change. Can you imagine how hard it would be on the Taliban to come over here and get us to alter our ways to theirs!!! Yup. 5-10 generations. No sooner. Call it 100-200 years. THEN you'd see change. We're idiots if we think we can do it in 14 years -- not even close. The Taliban are resident over there -- we're not. We lose. And they get to go on living the way they have for centuries -- not tricky for them at all. It's not how we want to live ... but then we have no say in it, no matter how much we "want" to because we know we're right. (Yeah, riiiiight.) It was a losing proposition from the get-go. We can pat ourselves on the back having nailed BinLaden ... we should have left it at that and cut our (huge) losses. Note: Sorry to report that the costs of the wars in terms of medical care for vets does not generally peak until 20 YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE WAR (note that we're just now getting out from under WWII completely and Vietnam vet costs didn't peak until 20 years after we lost that one). Best to set aside another trillion for these two wars veterans ... if we're lucky.
The Mouzer - thanks for a good discussion of the debt problem in terms (almost) everyone could understand.
SadOldVeteran - welcome to balanced delivery of the news. We should be able to criticize (not crucify) any policy the POTUS puts out, no matter the outcome. Part 2 of this is that all the writers are under intense pressure to get out copy to the Internet fast and for very little compensation to them.
Me - It's nice to have tax cuts and I certainly enjoy having the extra money, but I'm an old Kennedy admirer - what can I do for my country? I wouldn't mind paying FICA for the entire year like Medicare. I wouldn't mind paying a little extra tax, assuming all the rest of you paid too.
And 2010 election voted in the Republicans and Tea-Baggies to threaten Social Security and Medicare... Vietnam Veteran Against the War
A good analogy for the debt situation and the republican attitude toward it is to consider someone whose spouse ran up a $5000 credit card tab at Macy's. Which one do you blame, the one who pays the credit card or the one who ran up the bill? The republicans would have you believe that the one who pays the bill is to blame. The Democrats would have you believe that the one who ran up the debt is to blame.
And that is the situation in a nutshell.
Good thing Obama leveraged his Democratic congressional majority in 2009 to end the Bush tax cuts, pull out of Afghanistan, and leave Iraq ahead of schedule. That was even better than when he closed the prison at Guantanamo!
All well and good, now lets back to growing the Economy, all without forcing anybody to do anything and it won't cost anyone anything.
It is very odd that so called capitalist did not invent capitalism, but depended on the need to appear by magic. (Next spring it will appear in my garden.)