National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

CBS/iStockphoto

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

Mr. Obama blames policies inherited from his predecessor's administration for the soaring debt. He singles out:

CBSNews.com special report: America's debt battle

He goes on to blame the recession, and its resulting decrease in tax revenue on businesses, for making fewer sales, and more employees being laid off. He says the recession also resulted in more government spending due to increased unemployment insurance payments, subsidies to farms and funding of infrastructure programs that were part of his stimulus program.

At the first town hall meeting of his Midwestern bus trip last week, Mr. Obama told an audience in Minnesota that "the debt problem is real and the deficit problem is real."

But he also called in "a manageable problem."

The Gross National Debt now stands at 97.6 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product - the total value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the U.S.

9 Photos

Facts about the debt

[Joe-Nobody]

Just a couple of statement from a non partisan study...

Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year.

Since 1961 the United States national debt has never gone down.

It is interesting to note who controlled Congress versus what party was in the presidency during the seven years that the debt was reduced throughout the terms of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Three times the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency (1948, 1951 & 1961). The other four years all had a mix of control, with Republicans in the White House (1956 & 1957), in charge of Congress (1946 & 1947), but never both. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they ever reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver.

The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan's two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation's debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase.

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased.

When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation's history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has typically been around $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan's biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB's outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

[SloopyIvy]

You are wrong, again and cannot complete a simple math problem. You are a writer who is a liar and has a obvious agenda and you are a poor excuse for a journalist. Here is the truth, people : http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

[RobAla]

The most stark absence from President Obama's SOTU address was the fact that he totally ignored the massive debt we have accumulated under his administration. It grew under most Presidents, but it accelerated dramatically under him. He talked about making major cuts to defense - but did he indicate that he would use those savings to bring down the debt? NO. He talked about spending that money on other federal projects. He has NO PLAN to deal with our racing toward national bankruptcy. He has ZERO plans to stop this reckless and irresponsible nonsense.

[rugrats43rmine]

I would like you to answer 1 simple question. If you can answer this question, you would be the brightest person on this planet. How were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan payed for? Think very carefully before you answer.

[lucci123]

GOP and Mitt Romney said that they understand middle class; however, middle class are the one that make the different on Mitt 13.9 % tax rate, middle class make the different on his tax when he put his money in offshore accounts to avoid paying tax rate here in U.S. Mitt Romney made hundred of million on the back of American workers and now he wants ordinary American people to pay the different on his tax. In fact, he's promoting to the public that when he becomes president, he should pay half of 13.9 % while ordinary American will pay more than today tax rate. Is Mitt Romney and GOP for ordinary American or they are on the side of their elites friends?

Do you know that we borrow China $700 billion dollars a year to pay for super rich tax cut, because this is what the GOP wants? Further, in the eyes of GOP, this $700 billion dollars do not drive federal deficit, but jobs growth. Where are the jobs creations from $700 billion dollars tax cut? According to Newt, we're still affected by 911. Isn't this more than 10 years ago? Apparently, Newt, Mitt, and GOP are still in denial or in a coma. Not too long ago, GOP & Bush brought down the U.S and global economy, and now they're an expert on fixing this?

GOP and Tear Party, please stop pretending like you care about federal deficit when you're the one that drive the federal deficit sky rock--from two wars that unpaid for and borrow $700 billion dollars a year from China to pay for super rich tax cut
that they don't need.

Warren Buffett told ABC that his secretary's Debbie works just as hard as he does and she pays twice the rate he pays. He thinks that's outrageous.

[SloopyIvy]

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

[snopplethorp]

Both parties have spent way to much money RobAla, I am assuming that if the super rich were taxed at a much higher rate that would eliminate the $700 billion dollars we borrow from China. First question What do you call Super Rich? Secondly the super rich give to, and start foundations that many of the not so super rich benefit from. Perhaps if these off shore accounts were stopped or possibly allowed to happen and taxed maybe there would not be so many off shore accounts I think they will be curtailed in the near future. The problem with the super rich paying taxes is that they are doing it legally, but then it is the super rich that are making all the tax laws. Until we have a fair and just tax law like the fifteen percent tax rule or the fair tax proposal we the peons are going to pay a higher percent than the Warren Buffetts of the country. You don't mention anything about government waste.
such as the many redundant bureaucracies that Mr. Obama has promised to do something about. You don't mention the hundreds of billions of dollars that went to about twenty failed now bankrupt green energy business. You don't mention the billions of dollars that went to bailout business that have yet to be paid back to the taxpayers. You do not mention anything about the some 968,000 thousand people who many of them are receiving a portion of that $700 billion dollars a year. Which many of them a greater percentage of them would rather be working than receiving government assistance. A good portion of that $700 billion dollars a year goes to pay or the 4.9 trillion debt that was increased by the current president. Yes that is what this country needs is four more years of insanity. Remember it was Obama in the 08 campaign that said "a definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome." Well he wants four more years of the same thing.

[smartasss1]

For the past several months, Obama and the Democrats have been trying to engage the Republicans to reduce the deficit and the national debt. But the Republicans is blocking everything that the Democrats are trying.

The Republicans also cost us a ratings downgrade and put us in the brink of a government shutdown.

It seems that the Republicans would sacrifice America's economy for politics.

[smartasss1]

Well it's true. Bush started 2 wars and gave tax cuts without cutting services. Wrecked the economy and did the bulk of the bailouts.

On the other hand Obama spent 1 Trillion for the stimulus. Although the stimulus would not have been necessary if Bush did not wreck the economy in the first place.

The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts, 1/3 money back to state governments and 1/3 infrastructure projects. That does not sound too bad. At least that money went to us, not in Iraq.

[saturdaysun10]

Do you know anything about what's been going on for the past 30 years? What began the current economic problem is the housing problems. During the Clinton years, community outreach programs, banks were forced to underwrite subprime mortgages to people who normally wouldn't qualify for loans. The Fed lowered interest rates artificially to make borrowing attractive. That sent out inaccurate signals to other borrowers, inflated housing prices, and when the loans came due, it all fell down like a house of cards. Yes, it was extremely irresponsible for the US to go to war for fabricated reasons, and for that I really do blame Bush. There is no one else to blame for that. However, as far as the current economic situation goes, it is very complicated, and it starts with the housing bubble that burst. Please remember, though, that there's a lot of blame to be shared. Democrats voted for the war and they voted for the stimulus, as well. Don't be blinded by party loyalties. Look for the truth, no matter how hard it may be.

[zevmo]

saturdaysun10 is wrong. The community reinvestment didn't cause this problem, greed and deregulation did.

Any partisan hack can refuse to see this, and the attacks are as expected (blame the Democrat). The FACTS are that the CRA started under Carter. Last I checked, the nonsense began AFTER the deregulation in 98/99, passed by the REPUBLICAN house, with the Conservative Democratic President Bill Clinton signing it.
Under Bush, who wanted the ownership society to flourish, allowed and assisted in the total casino approach to banking and mortgages. THAT is what happened... unregulated capitalism on an unprecedented scale. And according to the FBI (under Bush), because of the deregulation, there was outright FRAUD involved, and mostly affecting minorities who qualified for regular loans but were sold bad loans b/c the bundler made more per closing.

To quote, "Don't be blinded by party loyalties. Look for the truth, no matter how hard it may be."

[geezerdude]

Are you really gonna vote for this man again? When he adds the 20 million illegals, how many trillion will that add? They are gonna get all for free and you are going to pay for it. I don't think we can pay much more. You can't add 20 million people and think they are going to help. They are a BIG drain, duh. Lets give some more to the Banks and Unions. They are really for whats best for Americans.

[rugrats43rmine]

He has deported more illegal immigrants than Bush did.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obamas-record-high-deportations-draw-hispanic-scorn/

[SloopyIvy]

Idiot sheeple. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html that's the truth for ya.

[karlimhof]

Well, tides out and since we (USA) are standing naked, why not see what's what?

Ever asked why we have that horrendous interest to pay? Why not issue our own currency? Why pay the Fed interest on OUR OWN MONEY. The Fed is simply a consortsium of banks gouging the American public. Thank it over before the next tide.

[gep1955]

He applied for the job, campaigned for the job, told us he could do the job, promised us good things if we gave him the job. What would your boss tell you if you had poor results at your job and just started blaming everybody else. Thats right, he/she would tell you to pack up and take a hike!

[SloopyIvy]

Sheeple!!! http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

[askagain]

When will people learn that you can't spend your way out of debt. Of course, there are people who only care about the short term or the here and now. The problem is our economy is still in a shamb;es, unemployment is still high, people are stilling losing their homes, and state and local governments are still raising taxes. Even if increasing the debt by 3 trillion had helped, we will be paying down that dent for generations to come.

[stevehamilton858]

I guess you don't know very much about accounting. Virtually all of the country's increased debt was required to pay the liabilities that George W.Bush incurred. There a two generally recognized ways to keep a set of books: The accrual basis, which virtually all businesses use, and which conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, or "GAAP"; then there is the cash basis. Essentially everything reported about government finances is reported on a cash basis. So the current administration has to pay cash for the liabilities that it inherited, which in the case of the sitting president, were astronomical. It reminds me of something that often happens in cases of divorce, where the husband gets stuck with paying off the credit cards his wife used at Niemans and Saks. the Treasury has to pay the charge accounts that Bush used during his tenure. BTW, I have 25 years'experience as the CFO of several companies, and I've seen this happen in business, as well. The new management team has to raise cash, in debt or equity, to pay off obligations/liabilities that the prior management group incurred. There's an old saying among finance professionals, "follow the money" , which is what needs to be done in this case. You can't just grab a couple of headline statements to arrive at a reasoned and reasonable conclusion.

[davidfromaustin]

Well said, Steve below. BTW there is a legal reason for the cash basis accounting. One legislature cannot bind a future one. Isn't that a riot!