Posted by Tina
What if the government already has all the money it needs? It appears that that is exactly the case. Here are the numbers according to this article in CNS News:
Specifically, during the Obama presidency, total interest on the federal debt has equaled $426.988 billion while total federal tax revenues have equaled $5.009005 trillion–or 10.8 times what was needed to simply pay the interest that the federal government owes on the money it has already borrowed.
Additionally, the $5.009005 trillion in tax revenue that the federal government has taken in since Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009 has been more than ample to pay the combined $4.517179 trillion the federal government has spent on interest, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, federal workers salaries and insurance payments for federal workers.
In fact, since Obama has been president, after the government paid the interest on the debt, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and federal workers’ salaries and insurance, it still had $491.826 billion in tax revenue left to spend on discretionary items.
Numbers source: U.S. Treasury Department’s Daily Treasury Reports
The CFO at my previous college district used to say, “There is always enough money, we just need to decide how to spend it.” Truer words have not been spoken!
We all know what the problem is, but no one will admit it. Everyone want to pass the blame off, instead of accepting their roll in it.
Who is to blame if I have $100 to feed my family for the week and instead of buying healthy meats and vegtables I spend it on ice cream, cookies and candy? Is it the clerks fault for selling it to me, or is it mine? The answer will tell the level of ones maturity.
“Specifically, during the Obama presidency, total interest on the federal debt has equaled $426.988 billion while total federal tax revenues have equaled $5.009005 trillion–or 10.8 times what was needed to simply pay the interest that the federal government owes on the money it has already borrowed.”
Don’t you think you’re being the tiniest bit disingenuous here?
You are trying to blame Obama for the interest rates of 30 years ago!!!!?????
It is somehow Obama’s fault that interest had accumulated before he took office?
WTF?!
Do you really believe this? I am guessing only if you are mentally disabled . . .
Look at the total payoff from what the country has borrowed since Obama took office–principal and interest. It is less than the interest alone that is owed on the trillion dollars your pal, Ronnie Ratfink borrowed in ’82. And your pal borrowed 3X a trillion!
Look Tina, we get that you don’t like Obama–and there is plenty to not like. You could make a case against him that was truthful, you know.
But, you’re a liar, ma’am.
I don’t mind saying that.
thanks Tina, very interesting article, in fact, very interesting news website.
I realize, we must take what we read and hear with a grain of salt, try to get our “news” from many different sources. But people who use the word “LIAR!” like a club are just trying to kill the conversation.
I know enough about the government to know they can do whatever they want and lie like dogs about it, that’s for sure.
Tina, aren’t you leaving something out? What about the trillion bucks a year to fund our war machine?
Q: “Don’t you think you’re being the tiniest bit disingenuous here?
You are trying to blame Obama for the interest rates of 30 years ago!!!!?????
It is somehow Obama’s fault that interest had accumulated before he took office?”
Calm down super freak…I posted a portion of an article, with a link, that contained facts (sourced facts). I headlined it with a question mark. I ofered no opinion nor did I place blame.
The purpose of the paragraph you question was to show that revenues exceeded the interest payment (by 10.8 times).
“But, you’re a liar, ma’am.
I don’t mind saying that.”
And you are a person with an extremely bad attitude who can’t read and comprehend what he has read …either that or you just harbor such an extreme bias toward me personally you can’t see straight.
You could have added something to this discussion without all the sarcam and name calling. Our readers might have benefitted from your own knowledge of the facts but you chose instead to read things into what I posted and then call me names for good measure. Why?
Unproductive, Q, incredibly unproductive!
Also your accounting regarding the debt under Reagan is misleading. Was he not also the recipient of the debt accumulated by those who came before him?
Comparisons are being made that are quite valid.
Once again CNS News:
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404
If I recall presidents are held to account about such things. You certainly don’t have a problem holding reagan or Bush to account. Is President Obama being held to a different standard?
Joe: “What about the trillion bucks a year to fund our war machine?”
Thanks for asking. I looked back at the article. Payouts for military personel is accounted for under veterans affairs and government employees. Defense vendor spending is another story:
Could this be what’s inspiring administration decisions to pull back our military efforts?
Our government has a few heavy decisions to make.
From my perspective, stimulus spending was a complete failure in terms of putting Americans back to work. Wall Street and banking have done better than the average citizen.
I was amazed that, given the sorry state in which we find ourselves, our government still managed to rake in a hefty amount of revenue. Imagine the amount that might have been realized had they taken a different course and the economy was humming by now. Better management…and less spread the wealth schemes would see us able to pay our bills and defend the nation.
I do think it’s interesting that this so-called debt crisis isn’t really as dire as they claim it to be…how about you?