A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
$5 Trillion Man
Posted: Apr 18, 2012
Facts are facts but that won't stop the excuses. Let the spin begin!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/5-trillion-man-debt-has-increased-under-obama-502776147648456
The $5 Trillion Man: Debt Has Increased Under Obama by $5,027,761,476,484.56
(CNSNews.com)- In the 39 months since Barack Obama took the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government’s debt has increased by $5,027,761,476,484.56.
Although he has served less than a term, Obama is now the first American president to see the federal government's debt increase by more than $5 trillion during his time in office.
During the full eight years that George W. Bush served as president, the federal government's debt increased by $4,899,100,310,608.44. (Rising from $5,727,776,738,304.64 to $10,626,877,048,913.08.)
The $5,027,761,476,484.56 that the debt has increased during Obama's presidency equals $16,043.39 for every one of the 313,385,295 people the Census Bureau now estimates live in the United States.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. By the close of business on April 16, 2012—as many Americans were working to finalize their 2011 tax returns to meet an April 17 filing deadline—the debt had reached $15,654,638,525,397.64.
The $5,027,761,476,484.56 in additional debt that the U.S. government has taken on during the 39 months that Obama has been president is more debt than the federal government accumulated in the first 219 years of the Republic.
The total federal debt did not exceed $5,027,761,476,484.56 until March 14, 1996, when President Bill Clinton was in the last year of his first term in office. On that day, the national debt rose from $5,025,887,531,178.79 to 5,035,165,720,616.33.
CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.
Have you calculated that president Bush... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]did not include the cost of two wars in any of his budgets? This cost was eventually added to the deficit during the past three years under Obama.
And Bush invaded Iraq for - nothing...
[ In Reply To ..]Wars that we never should have been involved in. Invading Iraq when bin Laden was nowhere NEAR Iraq?
And who found him???? Obama.
LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE post - No facts
[ In Reply To ..]Guess you never watched CSPAN and ALL the countries that participated. No, too busy working on the lib talking points for sure. G. Bush kept yours and a lot of other sorry lib behinds from being bombed/killed. But you keep on your Obama lover rant buttercup.
BTW - Obama found bin Laden with intelligence discovered by George Bush. If you can't bother to read the WHOLE process of how he was found, you look ridiculous in your posts. Guess too busy polishing Obama's crown.
NO FACTS - buttercup
[ In Reply To ..]
Poor Obama- has to blame everbody - BO is a spending fool
[ In Reply To ..]Obama has done nothing to reign in it:
1. No budget in over 1000 days.
2. Highest food stamp enrollment in history.
3. Longest high unemployment rate since depression.
4. Slowest growth in economy for ANY recession in the history of USA.
5. Two million jobs, under Obama regime, completely erased by employers due to destructive Obama policies.
6. Net loss of approximately 800,000 jobs since Obama regime.
7. Of unemployed, 92+% are WOMEN.
8. Poverty level OF WOMEN, increased by 17+% under Obama regime.
9. Govt. increased by approximately 41% under Obama regime.
10. Almot 50% of all Americans are now "takers" under the Obama regime; highest in history.
Want more? Would have to quit your job (if you're lucly enough to have one) just to read all the economic mess this clown has put us in. Yeah, we all know, poor Obama - Not man enough to stand on his P _ SS poor record, but first in line to take credit for what others did to benefit the economy.
If you're too lazy to look up the source, tough. All stats verifiable. If you can turn on a computer, you can look it up yourself. If not, keep your head between your legs...about as good of a view you're gonna see under this communist. If you're offended, good. There are 60% of us offended by the mere stupidity of this goof. - check that stat, too. NOW FLAME, FLAME, FLAME!
Surely you jest? You might benefit from frequenting - factcheck.com nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Surely you jest? You might benefit from frequenting - factcheck.com - Bwahhahahahha
[ In Reply To ..].
can we dump the echo posts, please?? - hello?
[ In Reply To ..]insipid posting technology
Too bad you 're so disturbed over words on a board - Pretty simple - skip them
[ In Reply To ..]hehehohohaha
fact check - goldie
[ In Reply To ..]I didn't have time to look up all them, but here's one. It's easy to fact check these statements.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/wasserman-schultz-manufactures-jobs-figure/
Wasserman Schultz Manufactures Jobs Figure
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrongly claimed that the U.S. has begun to add “millions of jobs in manufacturing.” About 800,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost during President Obama’s time in office, reaching a low of about 11.5 million in December 2009. Since then, about 303,000 manufacturing jobs have been created — not “millions.” At the current pace, the country will not return to the pre-Obama manufacturing job level until August 2016.
Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, made her statement Nov. 13 on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Wasserman Schultz, Nov. 13: Well, what I concede is that we do have a long way to go, but we absolutely have begun to turn things around, and we have made steady, but not quick enough progress. I mean, before President Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, David. And now we’ve had 20 straight months of growth in the private sector. We’ve added 2.8 million jobs in the private sector alone, begun to add, you know, millions of jobs in pri — in manufacturing. We’re starting to focus on making things in America again.
The Florida congresswoman is correct that when the president took office, job losses were exceptionally high. Job losses continued through February 2010, and since that time, nearly 2.8 million jobs have been created in the private sector (during that time only about 2.3 million jobs have been created overall due to job losses in the public sector).
But Wasserman Schultz is wrong about gains in manufacturing. Since Obama took office, there has been a net loss of 800,000 manufacturing jobs, hitting a low of about 11.5 million in December 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the past 22 months, since that low point, about 303,000 manufacturing jobs have been created for a monthly average of 13,772.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
At the current pace of recovery (measuring from the low point to today), the U.S. would not produce 1 million manufacturing jobs until January 2016, and jobs in that industry would not return to pre-Obama levels until August 2016. It would take until 2022 to add at least 2 million jobs — the minimum required for “millions” to be accurate.
We contacted the DNC about this claim, and spokesman Brad Woodhouse said that Wasserman Schultz “simply misspoke.”
Woodhouse, Nov. 16: She simply misspoke on the manufacturing side where she usually says hundreds of thousands — her point though is no less relevant — as you’ll see below — manufacturing has played an important role in the 20 consecutive months of private sector job growth we have experienced …
Listening to the video, it is clear that Wasserman Schultz briefly stumbles over her words, but she recovers to clearly state that millions of manufacturing jobs have been created. And that is not true. She would have been correct to say that hundreds of thousands have been created since the low point in manufacturing employment was reached in December 2009.
Great post goldie - as always - Conservative
[ In Reply To ..]x
Here is a link to supplement your graph... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]of the ups and downs of manufacturing jobs over the last approximately 70 years.
Oops! Meant factcheck.org - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
amazingly, no one seems to understand this - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
Amazingly, only the very intelligent understand - What a complete failure BO is
[ In Reply To ..].
Hahahaha - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Typical right - resorting to insults
[ In Reply To ..]Just because we have differing political viewpoints does not make one of us more or less intelligent than the other. I am very intelligent. I am very liberal. You are very conservative. That makes you DIFFERENT from me....not less intelligent.
Do not resort to insults.
Typical left, trying to deflect their namecalling - try reigning in your crowd
[ In Reply To ..].
Show me one instance of dem namecalling in this - thread. nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Name calling - posts have been removed by the moderator - what if - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Not the person you replied to, but the moderator has removed a lot of the name calling posts. She has also posted numerous times to stop with the name calling. Yes, dems namecall too. There are still posts up with name calling. But until you are on the receiving end of posters calling you idiots, war mongerers, ignorant, mindless, racist, stupid, that you don't care about the poor, the elderly, the sick, that your greedy because you don't want to send in more tax dollars to go for the poor, and many other names, you don't know what it feels like. If you are truly interested in what you wrote you do the research. Read all the posts and you will find the dems namecalling.
Believe me I have been on the receiving end of... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]some vile disgusting posts by republicans on this board. That is why I no longer post with a moniker. I have been monitoring myself the past few days and lately this thread. I have seen no recent deletions. Read the insults on this thread and you get a pretty good idea of the norm.
"Vile disgusting posts by" Dems/Libs - far outnumber any other posts nm
[ In Reply To ..]Unless poster has been on here 24/7, no way to know if posts removed or not. Just because someone doesn't see "recent deletions" doesn't mean they weren't removed. Read the insults on this board and see how Dems/Libs troll the board ALWAYS trying to set up a fight.
I have read all the threads and all the insults - been on the recieving end of many of them - what if - sm
[ In Reply To ..]A lot of people are "monitoring" this board. I've read all the posts. Everyone can argue that the other side is the worst. It doesn't really matter. I sure don't like being called ignorant, stupid, backwards, racist (gotta actually laugh at that one), tea****er, conspiracy theorist (laugh at that one too because they don't know what that means), and the list goes on and on. It's not just my moniker it's anything that is posted that shows what is going on under this current administration. I don't always post under my moniker. There are a couple other posters that the liberals have been brutal too with their whole slew of nasties. Pretty much telling us all we are liars and don't know what we are talking about. That our links are not credible but theirs are. And the list goes on and on. If you have been "monitoring" the board like you said you are you would know that. Unless of course you just glance over them and think it's okay.
When the moderator deletes a message it will not show that a message has been deleted. It's just gone. I know for a fact that Conservatives posts (sorry conservative, not talking about you, just making a point), but a post or two of hers is gone and there are a couple other posts no longer on this board (I went to read them to see if anyone replied and they are gone). Also the moderator does not always leave a message that she has deleted a post. Just when it gets really bad she usually puts a general message up as she did. Maybe you should leave the monitoring of this board up to the moderator.
Yes, I have read the insults on this board and I do have a good idea of "the norm".
Bush - goldie
[ In Reply To ..]Why the excuses? Nice try, blaming Bush and all, but please, let's stick to the facts. For example, the entire Iraq War cost $709 billion. Now, that's hardly a drop in the bucket, but it's far less ($100 billion) than Obama's failed stimulus that he passed his first month in office. Also, note that the Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the debt.
Now, can we please step away from the Bush derangement syndrome? Wouldn't it be refreshing if this administration would take responsbility for spending my grandchildren's future?!
Let's start with a budget. Oops, maybe not. I guess we aren't going to see one of those until after the election. Hopefully the new administration will act like responsible adults and not like some OWS kid with his mommy's credit card.
709 billion is less than 100 billion? - confused. nm
[ In Reply To ..].
billions and billions - goldie
[ In Reply To ..]No, the stimulus was $100 billion more than the entire Iraq war. The stimulus was $800 billion and Iraq war was $709 billion. Sorry for the confusion of my post. I probably could have worded it better.
As a side note, the true cost of the entire stimulus is $3.27 trillion. I can't even wrap my head around those kinds of numbers.
Few more Obama fun facts - re: His wild spending
[ In Reply To ..]Let us not forget:
1. 500-mill to Solyndra (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that).
2. 1.5 M to Muslim Brotherhood. (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that).
3. 12+ - million in vacations for Obamas. (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that).
4. Half-mill GSA scandal. (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that).
5. 3-trill Obamacare. (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that.)
6. $ 7500 tax credit, increased to $10,000. Not a big ticket since only 4 cars were sold and 3 caught on fire before leaving the lot..hehehahahoho. (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that).
7. MIllions paid out AIG bonuses. (Oh wait, Obama blamed Bush for that).
See a pattern?
Typical talkback. Let's talk about how things are improving. - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Keep spinning buttercup - Typical talkback with no facts
[ In Reply To ..].
Where are your facts? - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Where are yours? - Just trolling for fight as usual - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
I've read many of the following comments - Trigger Happy
[ In Reply To ..]and sadly it is NOT surprising to hear libs spout off right away....well look what Bush did. Bush wasn't perfect and yes, he screwed up. He also added to our deficit. However, that doesn't change the fact that Obama has added a heck of a lot more to the deficit. The point, which so many libs fail to recognize, is THAT WE ARE MAJORLY IN THE HOLE!!!! At this point we should be looking at solutions instead of pointing fingers...and before ya'll get your feathers all ruffled...taxing the rich won't even come close to taking care of our deficit spending. So do the math on that before you spout off how the rich should pay for everything.
Just once I wish we could stop the blame game. Obama has been president for 3 years. He gave himself 3 years. There may be a slight improvement in our economy, but I don't believe this small improvement is gonna last. I truly believe a double dip is heading our way.
No matter how people try to spin this, place the blame elsewhere, or just flat out deny to see the numbers right in front of them....we are in major trouble and Obama is our president. For a man who says he won't give any excuses, that is all I hear out of his mouth. Nothing is ever his fault....ever. Well..I don't buy that. Disagree with what Bush did all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama hasn't helped us much either.
Also, it doesn't help that we are very much in debt and yet we continue to see government workers and politicians wasting taxpayer dollars. Absolutely infuriating!!!!
Just another thing...the last couple of years of Bush's administration, congress was controlled by democrats but no liberal seems to bring that up. All they seem to remember is that it was Bush's fault as he was president. Funny how that same rule doesn't apply to our current president. Just sayin!
Trigger happy - goldie
[ In Reply To ..]You make some very good points. All I would add is that I think it would be difficult to find a regular poster here who is a Bush supporter. I think that's a main difference in liberal versus conservative thinking. A true conservative will critize a Republican (I've seen it done here), but a true liberal will not go against the party line and will defend a Democrat until the end.
Trigger Happy and goldie - right on all accounts - Conservative
[ In Reply To ..]No one single president is perfect regardless of party. What I frequently see on this board, if you disagree in any way, shape or form with a liberal, most immediately respond with personal attacks, completely ignoring the issue at hand. Every president does things that the constituents like and some they do not like, but to act like someone is perfect is very strange. Obama is so into the blame game and trying to divide the masses; it is shameful. Obama has been a complete disaster.
Some stats out today for you: 22.8 million out of work, 42.5% unemployed longer than 6 months, net loss of 800,000+ jobs under Obama, not one single net job gain under Obama, 7.7 million forced to take part-time work because that is all they can get, government employment went up 41%, poverty level at an all-time high, women in poverty went up more than 17%, food stamps usage increased by more than 40%, foreclosures at a record level, long-term unemployment worst since depression, USA credit downgrade under Obama, debt up to 15-trill, recession has lasted longer with all of Obama's "help", rampant government waste and abuse....ALL UNDER OBAMA.
Yet most liberals on this board will not address any of those issues. They start with "Obama-hater, liar, prove it, bully, where's your link, no resources, no facts, no websites, no research". Figures do not lie and stats can be viewed through Bureau of Labor and Statistics websites if there was any interest in getting whatever verification they felt was necessary.
Similar Messages:
BLOOMBERG: Dow + $2 TRILLION Since Trump ElectionJan 25, 2017
Donald Trump’s election win sent a $2 trillion shock wave through global markets over the past month. That’s how much equities’ global market value has jumped. And that’s about the size of the loss in worth of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index of bonds, over the worst month for global bonds in dollar terms on record. Other assets were roiled, too: the yen plunged the most in 21 years against the dollar. It all amounted to a complete reversa ...
Clinton Amnesty Tax: $15,000 Per Household, $1.2 TrillionNov 06, 2016
an immediate tax hike of $1.2 trillion, a $15,000 hit on every household in America, according to a new analysis of immigration reform. The authoritative National Academy of Sciences said the cost to give some 11 million illegals citizenship rights would be staggering... "The findings in the report indicate that if amnesty for illegal immigrants were enacted, the government would have to raise taxes immediately by $1.29 trillion and put that sum into a high-yield bank account to cover f ...
Al Gore Demands $15 TRILLION To Fight Apr 25, 2017
A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment. The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement. ETC is mad ...
Dems To Lift Debt Ceiling By $1.3 TrillionDec 10, 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html ...
Debt Hits 18 Trillion. Thanks, Obama. Keep On Keepin' On.Dec 01, 2014
nm ...
US Healthcare Tab Hits $3.2 Trillion, Fastest Growth In 8 Years.Dec 03, 2016
grew at the fastest rate in eight years in 2015, driven by the coverage expansion in President Barack Obama’s law and by costly prescription drugs, the government said Friday. The growth of 5.8 percent in 2015 boosted total health care spending to $3.2 trillion. That’s an average of $9,990 per person, although the vast share of that money is spent caring for the sickest patients.... ...
Sanders’ Spending Proposal Matches Size Of National Debt, $18 Trillion, In 10 YearsOct 04, 2015
Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), a self-identified socialist, is proposing the largest peacetime expansion of government in history, backing $18 trillion in spending in one decade, according to a tally by the Wall Street Journal. According to the U.S. Treasury, our current total public debt, including both debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings, exceeds $18 trillion. Sanders’ new expenditures would match this amount in 10 years. Sanders would dedicate ...
$22 Trillion Spent In 50-year "war On Poverty" Since Johnson.Apr 28, 2015
Drive through the slums of any major city in America, and it isn't very likely that you'll be looking at communities where the electorate is predominantly conservative, nor will these likely be found in districts that elect conservatives to office. You'll be looking at minority districts that have been failed NOT by conservative principles, but by years and decades of failed liberal policies and incompetent liberal political bosses. Then, look at the school districts in po ...