Will Obama add more to the national debt than Bush did in his first term?

My guess is no due to the fact that we are going to be taxed out the you know
so the government will have plenty of money but the people will not.

Here is an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426585033198517.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Watch Out for Sovereign Debt Risk
Optimists say that emerging-market defaults are a thing of the past. Emerging markets today, the argument goes, are relying more on domestically issued local currency debt, both inflation-indexed and non-indexed. This means their debts are far more stable and reliable than in the recent past, when a much larger share of government debt was issued externally and denominated in hard currency.

This argument is wrong. In the past, the combination of high levels of domestic debt and inflation surges has often proven deadly for both foreign and domestic investors. Just look at Argentina today, a country not nearly as prosperous as its abundant natural resources would warrant.

Already, a good share of Argentina's debt is in default. What else do you call it when a government that owes over $30 billion in inflation-indexed debt manipulates its consumer-price statistics? Through a variety of crude measures (such as firing its top statisticians), the government is publishing an understated inflation rate that is used for calculating indexation payments.

The official inflation rate in Argentina for the past 12 months is under 10%. But the true inflation rate appears to be at least 30%, according to virtually every neutral source.

(more at the link)

They won't raise taxes significantly during the recession and they'll have to spend out the wazoo to stimulate the economy. Remember that Bush inherited a budget surplus in his first term, Obama is inheriting a record deficit and has no choice but to add to it if he wants to prevent another Great Depression.

@mork> who has not made a comment, here is a real gamer regadless of the odds being set at 40/60
but for your info i will oblige
it has been noted that you have had one to the affirmative?

sorry if i have spoilt your question the reason is that he has promised to make my life hell
sorry again pixelpaws

I think this is a great question. Everyone knows that Barack plans to do some serious spending to get the economy rolling again but we also know that Dubya's military machine didn't come cheap either. As to what the tally will be in four years....Tough to say... Place your bets. I am pretty sure this question will see many wagers over the next four years.

IT will be so easy with this link get of the grass (mork)
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

yes it is a great question i will leave it a couple of years.other than the one i have already done

You're right curios. That link will be great for settling this question. In four years!
I suppose your personal attack of me being on grass is due to my profile page. I like to encourage people to research the history and facts of hemp because it could be very powerful in solving many of our environmental, energy, food and agriculture, and economic problems we face in the world today. I suppose you think George Washington used marijuana too?

If you want to discuss substance use though I will mention that your keyboarding skills sometimes make me feel thankful that you are not behind the wheel of a car.

mork >you are joke get of the grass has no relation to you in the slightest its a Australian saying it you don't believe me ask any Aussie,(ask>TISHA) and as for going to your profile page why should i why deal with a menace.
and your remark about driving, i expect i have driven around the world many many times and never caused a accident
(on by mothers grave) can u say the same?
but i will look at your profile

i have been there seen your George washington quote but i was more interested in your Boston terrier
as i had a Australian champion with by champion boxers but unlike the Americans , incidentally i had to turn down a trip over there to judge
we do not crop ears!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry I misunderstood you Curios. Also, Thanks for trying to make your comments more decipherable lately - sincere

According to this story, the 2009 deficit alone will be between 1.2 trillion and 2 trillion dollars... I can hardly imagine that in the following years they not only balance the budget but pay down the debt. If this is the case, then by fiscal 2010 (or soon after) Obama will have already surpassed Bush's additions to the National Debt...

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/01/08/12_trillion_deficit_projection_threatens_ruin_for_US/UPI-54821231429735/

Obama forecasts $1.7 Trillion deficit this year.... Sounds like we will have a winner, folks!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090226/pl_nm/us_obama_budget_11

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

The White House on Monday pushed up its forecast for the U.S. budget deficit for this year by $89 billion, reflecting the recession, a raft of new unemployment claims and corporate bailouts.

A fresh estimate of the deficit showed it coming in at $1.84 trillion -- representing a massive 12.9 percent of gross domestic product -- in the current 2009 fiscal year that ends on September 30.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-forecasts-higher-rb-15199206.html?.v=3

Looks like Obama's first year alone will put him over the top of Bush's 4 year total....

Since, for some reason, I neglected to post it, the debt on January 20, 2009 was $10,626,877,048,913.08. That's the base point that Obama's going to be working against.

White House Sees $9 Trillion in Deficits Over Decade (Update1)
By Brian Faler

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government’s long-term budget outlook is darker than expected, with projected deficits over the next 10 years totaling $2 trillion more than had been forecast, according to an Obama administration official.

A White House budget review set for release Aug. 25 will show cumulative deficits over the next decade amounting to $9 trillion, up from $7.1 trillion that the administration predicted in May, the official said on condition of anonymity because the figures haven’t been made public.

The administration revised the estimate after taking into account more up-to-date information about how the economy performed late last year, which affected its assumptions about the future, the official said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated deficits between 2010 and 2019 will total $9.14 trillion.

The deficit, the difference between government spending and revenue, is financed by borrowing from investors in the U.S. and other countries. The borrowed money is tacked onto the national debt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaNkaSFbrjmA

It's sooo easy to spend OPM.

Tuesday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on the budget predicting a $7 trillion deficit by 2019. This is after Obama's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released its own report predicting a $9 trillion deficit over the same period of time.

If the debt goes up by more than all of Bush's term after, let's say, Obama's first year, do we have to wait for Obama's term to end to settle this, or can it be settled right then?

as long as there is a possibility that he it can be reduced below the Bush's level before the end of his term, I'd say, we must wait what the actual result will be.

It would have to be the end of his term, or else he spends one dollar and the bet is settled =S

Well, he's well on his way. After his first year, he's gone 1.4 Trillion in debt....worst year on record....

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/16/news/economy/treasury_deficit/index.htm?postversion=2009101615

This question makes me laugh, truly laugh.

makes me laugh too...add up the 8 years Bushie was in office and all the debt he acquired ... the spending for the wars, the dismantling of financial regulation so the big boys could make a killing, amazing Wall Street fat cat money, subprime mortgages to make money and Obama in office only since January

This is worth repeating...

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you
have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan
causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in his first 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

haven't got anything new? this one's old and lame:
http://www.hubdub.com/m57216/Will_the_government_controlled_media_isolate_Fox_news_as_Obamas_spokesmen_are_calling_for

and it doesn't get any better just because you repeat the chain-mails you receive.

same old same old notable...

So, if it were not a repeat, would a rational person think I would have started out by saying "this is worth repeating"? You guys are amazing! LOL

you're amazing how you completely ignore that we recognize that you repeated it. and that we simply state that it is not worth repeating.

LOL yourself.

It's worth repeating when others REPEAT the same tired old excuses, blaming Bush for everything that OBAMA has screwed up in the last year. I won't argue that Bush did some damage to the economy, especially with TARP. Obama, however, has taken government spending and takeover of the economy to a new level, and as he continues his devastating policies, we will soon see an economy and currency in tatters, all Obama's doing.

"you're amazing how you completely ignore that we recognize that you repeated it. and that we simply state that it is not worth repeating.
LOL yourself."
Is this a point you are making, or just some childish comment for lack of anything intelligent to say?

"lack of anything intelligent to say"

well, at least I didn't copy/paste my text and actually said something myself! LOL

@nn so i guess there is more to add to #28

"If George W Bush had shown he was wildly disconnected and inappropriately light, making introductory remarks at a previously scheduled event, after news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, and the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed, and failed to mention the terrible act of terrorism until 3 minutes into the speech. Would you have approved?"

"If George W Bush had offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." when Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient and instead was awarded the Medal of Freedom, by the president that Obama most wants to emulate, would you have brushed it off as a minor slip.

@excavator:

Great points... I felt Mr Obama's remarks today were no better than yesterday's. He doesn't show the normal concern a Commander In Chief would have for our men and women in uniform.

I remember watching him approach a marine who was saluting and offer to shake his hand. Clueless.

Then he changed the ROEs and makes it more difficult for our servicemen to defend themselves - of course the casualty rates went up. But that gave him a chance to have a photo-op with a returning casket. It makes me mad.

Now he isn't supporting his generals in the war zone - instead he's dithering around trying to decide if he wants to win the war in Afghanistan or not. That must be one reason why the founding fathers wanted a natural born citizen to be president - someone who would more naturally look out for his countrymen's best interest.