Obama put that debt back on the books.

and the interest on the debt caused it to re-double during the Obama years. It was not Obama spending, because as we all know the party of no under Mitch McConnell did not allow Obama any infrastructure spending. Just carryover from republican wars, like the WMD lie war in Iraq.

that Shrub hid when he was in office. I.e., Obama ensured the figure was more "transparent". Plus the stimulus (ARRA or "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" ) was about 3/4 of a trillion. Plus there was a 2-year extension of the Shrub tax cuts in order to extend unemployment benefits to recover from the recession (and CBO indicated would add $800 billion). Plus Shrub's Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug plan) was not paid for, so that added to it - but was to be mitigated through the ACA (although now the GOP has been tearing the funding for the ACA apart).

And then you had the wars -

Too bad the original article didn't bother to mention all of this.

have been pretty much trashing Obama, much as they did during his 8 years. And as long as they do it, I will continue to blame the rise of Drumpf SOLELY on the media.

The national debt during the Bush II administration increased from 5,728 B$ to 10,627 B$, an increase of 4,899 B$ (86%). The debt during the Obama administration has increased from 10,627 B$ to 19,947 B$, an increase of 9,320 B$ -- a larger dollar increase ($4.4 trillion more) in Obama's 8 years than in G.W. Bush's 8 years.

However, under G.W. Bush, the accumulation of debt was totally unnecessary and pointless -- the last 4 years under his predecessor (Clinton) were all years of budgetary surplus. Bush quickly returned us to budget deficits and debt accumulation via massive tax cuts, 2 wars (one based on lies about weapons of mass destruction), and the Medicare Part D drug benefit (which was written by and for the insurance and drug companies and forbid Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug companies!!) -- all of which were totally unpaid for (unlike Obamacare which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- the official arbiter of the fiscal cost of legislation -- scores as creating a slight 10-year surplus through cuts elsewhere and to a wide assortment of fees and taxes). Whereas the debt increase under Obama was to stop the plunging economy he inherited (4.3 million jobs lost in the last 10 months of the Bush admimistration) and to get the economy pointed in the right direction.

National Debt as Percent of GDP
January 1, 2001: 56.8 % (19 days before Clinton left office and Bush took office)
January 2, 2018: 103.8 % (20,493 / 19,739)

In 17 years the debt AS A PERCENT OF GDP has almost doubled (1.83 X)
Italy with a debt to GDP ratio of 120% (Feb. 26, 2013) is one of the five "PIIGS" countries of the European debt crisis. Thanks to the unpaid-for tax cuts and 2 wars on the national credit card, the Medicare Part D give-away to the pharmaceutical companies and the Great Recession, G.W. Bush!

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S?cid=5
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GFDEGDQ188S.txt

National Debt as Percent of GDP
62.7% 1993 Q1 - When Bush I left office and Clinton took office
54.9% 2001 Q1 - When Clinton left office and Bush II took office
77.4% 2009 Q1 - When Bush II left office and Obama took office
103.8% 2017 Q3 - latest on this graph

{#} ACTUAL Federal Spending and Deficits - Fiscal Years 2008 - 2017, in $Billions

Fiscal year 2017 ended September 30, 2017. Similarly for all the other fiscal years.

Note: all figures in this section are actual, not budgeted. I only point out that Bush signed the FY 2009 budget.



And yes, the above numbers include payroll tax receipts (including Social Security) and Social Security benefits expenditures, since the above are unified budget numbers.

Source:
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53286 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53286-mbr.pdf . . . See also https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/hist01z1.xls
(Table 1.1) for receipts, outlays, and surplus (Historic tables are listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals ).

Source for the 2008 numbers (and 2009 thru 2012 except a couple of the later years were revised by the document above):
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43698 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf

Aside: how it was spent (good read): https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go


So FY 2017 federal spending is 463 B$ (13.2%) more than FY 2009 (the last Bush budgeted year).

Since the nominal (current dollar) GDP increased by 35.5% between FY 2009 (a recession low point) and FY 2017 (see next paragraph), while federal spending increased 13.2%, that means federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped substantially during those 8 years -- from 24.46% of GDP to 20.42% of GDP (calculations below). Something to keep in mind when some rightie rants and raves about the socialist Obama spending us into the poor house.

Note: I am including FY 2017 as part of Obama's legacy because he signed the FY 2017 budget spending bills. FY 2017 runs from Oct. 1, 2016 thru Sept. 30, 2017 -- 3 2/3 months while Obama was president, and 8 1/3 months while Trump was president). Just like I assigned FY 2009 to Bush

In Current Dollars: GDP FY 2009 (2009 Q3) = $14,384.1 billion . GDP FY 2017 (2017 Q3) = $19,495.5 billion -- an increase of 35.5% over FY 2009.

Source of GDP figures: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
where FY 2009 = Q4 2008 through Q3 2009. And FY 2017 = Q4 2016 through Q3 2017.

FY 2009: Spending / GDP = 3518/14384 = 24.46% . FY 2017: Spending / GDP = 3981/19496 = 20.42%

See the previous section that explains that the Fiscal Year 2009 budget (Oct. 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009) was signed into law by G.W. Bush, and how the CBO on January 7, 2009 (13 days before Bush left office) projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. So all but about $200 billion of FY 2009 spending and deficits was "baked in" before Bush left office.

{#} The FY 2017 deficit (666 B$) is less than half of what Obama inherited (1413 B$)

Reasons for deficit reduction (July 7, 2013): https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/market-and-economic-insights/us-federal-deficit-shrinking?ccsource=email_weekly

Can you name the two presidents that more than doubled the national debt while they were president?

I haven't met one yet who knows the correct answer, which is Reagan and G.W. Bush.

They always answer with two Democratic President's names. Always.

Here's my tally:

# URL: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

# Under Reagan the debt nearly tripled (2.87 X)

# Under Bush I the debt increased by 56% (1.56 X)

# Under Bush II the debt nearly doubled (1.86 X)

# The debt under the two Bushes together nearly tripled -- it increased 1.56 * 1.86 = 2.89 X

# The last 3 Republican presidents (Reagan and the two Bushes) increased the national debt by 2.87 * 1.56 * 1.86 = 8.3 times, yes they more than octupled the national debt in their combined 20 years of office.

# Under Clinton the debt only increased 37% (1.37 X)

# Under Obama, it went up 1.88 X (see post#8, primarily to deal with the aftermath of Bush's "Ownership Society&quot

size also matters. It is one thing going from $1 trillion to $2 trillion, and another thing going from $10 Trillion to $20 Trillion.

Even better comparison would be based on GDP at the time when debt was incurred.

Continuing Resolution.

Each budget keeps getting extended with the same spending levels because neither side will let the other do everything needed to get even one year down all the way to balanced, to say nothing of reaching a surplus so the debt is actually reduced.

What I don't understand is why a budget can be passed that RAISES the deficit under reconciliation. It should be the other way around.

any plan to pay it off or even to stop it from growing by another trillion each year.

No politicians even talk about it anymore. It's become hopeless. And this is with very low interest rates. What happens when interest rates go up which they need to do.

I mean, it's a big scary monster at $21 trillion. Best keep it at a distance and occupy the sheeple's minds with something else.

during a strong economy and stock market instead of paying down the debt or deficit. They are going to get really draconian on cutting social programs to compensate.

Strong economy and stock market is exactly when we need to be collecting revenues to pay down the debt or save it for when the next recession comes and we can use it for stimulus and infrastructure.

Every career politician's job depends on his/her mega-rich contributors. Those rich contributors want more growth via more borrowing. The game will go on.

it's been propped up long enough. The house of cards are falling down. Check the stock market today.

It is a long way up in stratosphere. Just since election in November 2016 it is up nearly 40%. It is now MORE OVER-VALUED than in Oct 1929 based on Shiller index. The next crash will be mother of all crashes.

The Rethugs now think more tax cuts will help them get re-elected...making the middle class tax cut permanent and a capitol gains tax cut.

They can not let the tiger held by the tail go.

Is just another tax cut for the rich.they can throw their money in the stock market and pay a low tax on the earnings.

fiscal Conservatism ,,,,,, That's a good one!

btw,,, most of Obama's debt was caused by Dubya flushing 8.5 million jobs down the toilet on his way out of the White House!

Stop squandering America's fiscal stability.

Down with the FAKE Conservative KGOP machine.

1) A deficit is not by default bad
2) The size of our deficit is bad
3) Both parties are party to the bad deficit
4) Do we REALLY need to spend more money on the military?

So long as we can borrow, just have a party and have a great time. Then we can declare bankruptcy and wipe out all the debt. Then start another party.