When it comes to racking up debt, no one can top Tim Geithner:
When Geithner took office the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. As of June 30, 2011, it had risen to $14.3 trillion.
In fact, the debt accrued under Geithner is greater than all federal debt accrued in the first 204 years of the nation’s history. The national debt did not reach $3.7 trillion until October 1991, according to historical Treasury data that reaches back to 1791.
Geithner, who reportedly may step down from his position soon, has overseen the accrual of more federal debt (in only 2.5 years) than every Treasury secretary combined from Alexander Hamilton to Nicholas Brady, who was Treasury secretary in October 1991 when the national debt reached $3.7 trillion.
That’s quite a legacy.
Well, at least he thinks that tax rates should go up on small businesses so that we don’t have to reduce the size of the federal government.
He will be missed. But I’m not sure by whom.
Noooo! Inflation is low and the economy is in the slumps — we clearly need more debt just like the lefty economists say! Maybe 20 Trillion will solve everything!
Strange. I was under the impression that we racked up debt when Congress authorized more spending than we had revenue to pay for.
We do, but Geithner was a cheerleader for all of that spending, and I don’t recall him advocating massive tax increases at the time to pay for it.
Cheerleader for all that spending? The spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And he seems to have been advocating tax increases since 2009.
The amount spent on Iraq and Afghanistan are only a small percentage of the run up in spending since Obama came into office. His 2009 “Stimulus Bill” alone likely dwarfs all of the money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 10 years.
But now we are paying for Libya, Yemen, and now Somalia. One day we will pay for Syria too, but we probably won’t like that bill when it comes.
He’s a New York money man through and through, and he’s certainly done very well for his New York Goldman-Sachs money man friends. A gigantic amount of Treasury Bonds sold, the yield on which should rise and rise for decades to come — what’s not to like?
Plus he’s very international. Spent much of his life living outside the United States, speaks multiple foreign languages, deep in with the international crowd at the IMF. A real post-American for an American post, much like his boss Barack, the first post-American American President.
Larry J:
No.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Iraq: $806 Billion to date
Afghanistan: $444 Billion
The most recent CBO estimate of the stimulus I’ve been able to find was $821 billion, which includes some future costs.
I think Larry’s point, Will, is that Team Obama managed to spend in one year more than what two major wars cost — and your costs from the FAS include everything remotely tied to the wars, including future veterans benefits — over 10 years. Furthermore, we actually got some benefit from the wars, while the stimulus apparently dropped into a black hole. (My consideration of the benefits does not include freedom for the Iraqis, by the way, I only count the salutory effect on other state sponsors of terrorism plus the extraordinary live-fire training the military got, and which has turned the USMC into the deadliest hardened fighting force since Napoleon.)
I’m no big fan of the “nation building” circus, but it’s no defense of Team Obama, including Geithner, to say that they’re merely the worst, and not the only, profligate spender on the block.
Not only that, but Obama’s “tax the business fat cats’ jets” proposal is estimated to bring in $3 billion over 10 years. That’s less than what he blew on “Cash for Klunkers” in 3 weeks! The man is an economic moron.
Carl:
Again, no.
Two major wars in iraq and Afghanistan is $1.2 trillion in expenditures. To date.
The $821 billion estimate is the net impact on the deficit of the stimulus through 2019.
A lot of that falls in 2009-2011. but it certainly doesn’t fall in a single year.
And it wasn’t all actually spending.
A lot was lower taxes.
Since Obama took office, we have not had a deficit under $1.4t.
Bush added about $4.9t to the debt over 8 years and Obama will add about $4.4t by the end of his third year.
If we were out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, we would still be running a deficit over $1t.
Actually…. the numbers I remember are this: In 2000, the US ran a yearly budget surplus; and the independent Congressional Budget Office stated that such surpluses had not become structural, and projected that surpluses would end up paying off ALL debt by as early as 2013. The disaster that was 2001-2008, including the Republican-caused Great Recession and trillions in tax cuts for the wealthiest and horribly mismanaged wars, is what Geithner inherited. In January 2009, the economy was plunging towards depression, whole industries were failing, wars were being horribly lost, and the 700,000 people per month were continuing to lose their jobs. It was the worst mess any Administration has been saddled with – bar none. Why implicitly defend the evil incompetents who created all that? Why want to vote more of them into office? If that indeed does happen, America – and possibly the world – will never recover. And all some of us have been working for will have been for nought.