NYT: How the U.S. Got $14.3 Trillion in Debt and Who Are the Creditors

[Tulane Skins Fan]

yes, it has been.

The argument is supported by the fact that revenues have gone up, virtually every year since the nation was founded.

So it's a little like arguing that "every year there's been a massive tax cut, gravity has worked. Therefore tax cuts cause gravity."

no, the sound bite that you're referring has never been abandoned. Nor is it likely ever to be.

mother****er!!!!

[Larry]

deleted duplicate post.

(I blame Albert Haynsworth.)

[Thiebear]

.

Both sides are cutting 30billion.. WOW! Thats almost as good as saying we cut 100billion and then 60 billion and ending up with 14million.

We are $*$*@d

People are saying keeping the budget at 2010 levels is to kill people in cuts??? Keep trying

[Larry]

Very true. Which is why the Tea Party is gaining so much traction. They actually mean it.

The problem with the GOP rule of the 00s was they spent like Democrats.

And the 90s. And the 80s.

And they didn't spend like Democrats. They spent like Republicans.

[twa]

.

Both sides are cutting 30billion.. WOW! Thats almost as good as saying we cut 100billion and then 60 billion and ending up with 14million.

We are $*$*@d

People are saying keeping the budget at 2010 levels is to kill people in cuts??? Keep trying

Dang Texas cut 27;) Billion in 2 yrs to give ya some perspective.... Lightweights

[twa]

housecleaning

[twa]

housecleaning

[twa]

I feel like I'm repeating myself

[JMS]

Doesn't President Obama have 2009 as 50% his?

No because the budget was already passed when he got into office, just like the 2001 budget was passed when bush took office

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 12:28 AM ----------

Actually, the thing that struck me about this was that its total BS that China owns our debt. Sure, they own a lot of it, but its a total farce to say "China owns our debt."

It's also farcical to say we are even in a debt crisis. Facts are our debt to GDP ratio is

Half that of japan. It's made up by the same folks who say social security is not sustainable.

Facts are if we don't fund the bush tax cut for the next ten years we have enough money to

Fund the social security deficit for the next 70 years and social security is only about 80 years old

(78).

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 12:35 AM ----------

Tell us what the Dem plan is right now?

Does it raise or lower the debt?

Nobody has a plan to lower the debt. Because balancing the budget overnight while the economy

Is still weak is suicide.

The debate is how do you lower the deficit. Through cuts alone which has never and will never work,

Or through a combine approach involving cuts, new revenue, and holding spending constant letting the economy

Grow itself out of deficit. Like Clinton and newt did.

[Jumbo]

It's also farcical to say we are even in a debt crisis. Facts are our debt to GDP ratio is

Half that of japan. It's made up by the same folks who say social security is not sustainable.

Facts are if we don't fund the bush tax cut for the next ten years we have enough money to

Fund the social security deficit for the next 70 years and social security is only about 80 years old

Related info here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/is-japans-debt-doomed/72450/

Rebuilding northern Japan from the swath of devastation wrought by last week's quakes and tsunamis will cost the Japanese government tens of billions of dollars. Japan already has the world's highest debt to GDP ratio, at 200 percent -- more than three times the United States' burden. Washington is already concerned about the U.S. tip-toeing toward a debt crisis with far less red ink on our shoulders. What makes Japan so different?

[JMS]

Very true. Which is why the Tea Party is gaining so much traction. They actually mean it.

The problem with the GOP rule of the 00s was they spent like Democrats.

Actually the GOP out spent the DEMS by 2 - 1 when in charge of the house.

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 12:56 AM ----------

Well, I think it's safe to sat that lowering taxes and increasing spending adds to the debt.

(It also grows the economy.)

That's not exactly accurate. Depends what you spend the money on.

If you blow all your money on defense as we did under bush the economic

Benefits are negligible as we saw GW created fewer new jobs than any president

Since Hebert Hoover. If you need 10 tanks for defense and you buy 100 other than

Employing the tank builder the economy sees no benefit. However if you build a bridge, road, or lay train tracks

The economy not only benefits from the production cost but then benefits because it gets to use the

Asset.

Far as I know, nobody's ever even proposed, let alone tried, cutting spending. (Unless you count the annual Republican demands that somebody else do it.)

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 01:00 AM ----------

Well, I think it's safe to sat that lowering taxes and increasing spending adds to the debt.

(It also grows the economy.)

[\quote]

That's not exactly accurate. Depends what you spend the money on.

If you blow all your money on defense as we did under bush the economic

Benefits are negligible as we saw GW created fewer new jobs than any president

Since Hebert Hoover. If you need 10 tanks for defense and you buy 100 other than

Employing the tank builder the economy sees no benefit. However if you build a bridge, road, or lay train tracks

The economy not only benefits from the production cost but then benefits because it gets to use the asset. Look at the Hoover dam or the Tenn water authority project,

They have been paying huge economic benefits for 7 decades.

Far as I know, nobody's ever even proposed, let alone tried, cutting spending. (Unless you count the annual Republican demands that somebody else do it.)

[CurseReversed]

No because the budget was already passed when he got into office, just like the 2001 budget was passed when bush took office

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 12:28 AM ----------

It's also farcical to say we are even in a debt crisis. Facts are our debt to GDP ratio is

Half that of japan. It's made up by the same folks who say social security is not sustainable.

Facts are if we don't fund the bush tax cut for the next ten years we have enough money to

Fund the social security deficit for the next 70 years and social security is only about 80 years old

(78).

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 12:35 AM ----------

Nobody has a plan to lower the debt. Because balancing the budget overnight while the economy

Is still weak is suicide.

The debate is how do you lower the deficit. Through cuts alone which has never and will never work,

Or through a combine approach involving cuts, new revenue, and holding spending constant letting the economy

Grow itself out of deficit. Like Clinton and newt did.

Grow ourselves out? How many more trillions do you think the FED will need to print up to get us there?

What will our currency be worth after we continue printing trillions every year to prop up this system while we grow?

Is "balancing the budget over night" the strawman you need to build to avoid actually having to balance the budget?

What if interest rates go up? You know those things that the FED used to control before the real estate bubble. Now they just have the pedal pinned to the floor.

What if prices spiral out of control due to inflation from the trillions of dollars already printed but not yet in circulation.

What if the rest of the world stops using the dollar as the reserve currency and stops buying debt. What if they already are starting too?

The economic situation is a lot more fragile then that, only a fundamental shift in what govt responsibilities are can get things under control and save the dollar. otherwise, they will monetize this debt.

Sure we can pay it back later but it will be with dollars that are worthless.

The fact that the FED is bailing out countries and banks around the world shows they are willing to sacrifice US interests, propping up a global system

Even they know the situation is more serious then you would make it seem. This is not Japan, we have a problem here. Please lets get serious, we cannot just print our way out.

[Larry]

Nobody has a plan to lower the debt. Because balancing the budget overnight while the economy

Is still weak is suicide.

Just pointing out that your statement of suicide is correct, but that there are people who want to do it, anyway.

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 06:45 AM ----------

Grow ourselves out?

Well, it does have the advantage of being the only method in my lifetime that has ever worked.

Is "balancing the budget over night" the strawman you need to build to avoid actually having to balance the budget?

Your claim of "strawman" might be more realistic, if people weren't actually demanding it, right now.

The economic situation is a lot more fragile then that, only a fundamental shift in what govt responsibilities are can get things under control and save the dollar. otherwise, they will monetize this debt.

"The economy is fragile! Therefore we must immediately make it drastically worse, so that we can violently, instantly, enthusiastically follow a philosophy of voodoo economics which we've been following for the last 30 years, and which has been failing that whole time."

This is not Japan, we have a problem here. Please lets get serious, we cannot just print our way out.

Now that's a fine looking straw man.

[Thiebear]

Did we print trillions of dollars out of thin air.

Sell it to ourselves in a not so secrative laundering scheme

then tell ourselves we can't default on that debt?

nice.

[CurseReversed]

Did we print trillions of dollars out of thin air.

Sell it to ourselves in a not so secrative laundering scheme

then tell ourselves we can't default on that debt?

nice.

Apparently we told ourselves that not only could we not default but that we need that debt to grow so we can grow. We convinced ourselves that printing trillions of dollars a year is just part of running a world class, first rate, super country. Free paper money for all, yay.

Meanwhile the FED is printing and shipping billions of dollars around the world trying to keep the system afloat.

If we could only get a few more trillion we could do this whole balanced budget thing later, when we are a stronger economy.

Of course the dollar will be worth nothing by then, the middle class destroyed, and we will be in twice as much debt.

[JMS]

Just pointing out that your statement of suicide is correct, but that there are people who want to do it, anyway.

Not really. Nobody is talking about balancing the budget. The Boehner plan increases the debt ceiling, just like the Democrat plan will.

The Boehner plan just locks us into no new revenue streams for the federal government ( locking us into historically low revenue as a percentage of GDP ) while increasing the debt ceiling. It also basically dismantle a laundry list of New Deal legislation which again aren't really the problem.

The Tea Party plan likewise doesn't balance the budget. Their plan is to do nothing, essentially to allow us to default on our debt. This is kind of like trying to save money by not paying your mortgage and credit card bills. It doesn't balance the budget or really even offer a path to balancing the budget. It too will actually lead to much more debt because once we default the creditors will certainly raise the interest rates on our debt and seriously no country on earth can survive without a credit rating so we will eventually be forced to make good at the higher rates. Also I don't think the Tea Party folks are considering that most of the debt is actually owned by the American People / Businesses and our own government... thus any type of default hurts our own industries. Again not a plan to balance the budget... much the opposite. It's basically what happens when you form a philosophy which demonizes intelligence.. You typically don't get smart folks in charge.

Well, it does have the advantage of being the only method in my lifetime that has ever worked.

It's the only meathod which has a prayer of working. A balanced approach. Cut, Raise Revenue, and over time grow yourself out. We can't just cut our way out as the GOP would propose doing ( when they aren't in charge). And really they don't want to cut/reform the 10,000 pound gerillas who are eventually going to kill us. Defense, and Healthcare. These are the real issues facing the country. The GOP want's to basically leave them in tact and cut their host of programs they object too which taken together really don't help the problem...

Your claim of "strawman" might be more realistic, if people weren't actually demanding it, right now.

Nobody is demanidng a balanced budget. Nobody. Everybody except the tea party guys realize we will have to increase the debt ceiling. The GOP want's to lock Obama into no new revenue streams, and lower the deficite by cutting new deal programs. The dems want to increase the debt ceiling and lower the deficites by new revenue streams, cuts, and eventually economic growth. The tea party wants to default on our debt which will eventually cost us much more than either of the other two plans on the table.

[mardi gras skin]

The Tea Party plan likewise doesn't balance the budget. Their plan is to do nothing, essentially to allow us to default on our debt. This is kind of like trying to save money by not paying your mortgage and credit card bills. It doesn't balance the budget or really even offer a path to balancing the budget. It too will actually lead to much more debt because once we default the creditors will certainly raise the interest rates on our debt and seriously no country on earth can survive without a credit rating so we will eventually be forced to make good at the higher rates.

According the the Treasury, creditors are getting paid first. Even if we don't raise the debt limit, we won't default. Read below.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_16/Treasury-Priorities-List-Might-Cost-Votes-207819-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

[JMS]

Grow ourselves out? How many more trillions do you think the FED will need to print up to get us there?

Seriously, We have the largest most diverse economy in the world. our Debt to GDP ratio is well under many other countries like Japan. Hell we aren't even one of the top 10 worst countries on debt to gdp ratio...

Countries who carry the most debt to GDP ratio are

Japan ------------------------------225.9

St. Kitts and Nevis -----------196.3

Lebanon --------------------------139.0

Jamaica --------------------------135.7

Greece ---------------------------130.2

Eritrea ----------------------------129.7

Grenada -------------------------119.1

Italy -------------------------------118.4

Iceland ---------------------------115.6

Barbados -----------------------111.6

The United States Debt to GDP Ratio is 92.7%

Like buying a house with 93% of your yearly income... not that extravigant. certainly not unmanageable

What will our currency be worth after we continue printing trillions every year to prop up this system while we grow?

The reason why the united states at the height of 2008 fiscal crisis could barrow money at negative interest rates ( when handing fees were added in) Is because we are the most trusted nation in the world. It's because we don't default on our debt, and because we have the strongest, most diverse, largest economy in the world and we generally have sane people running the show.....

Not paying our debt, or Nationalizing our Debt are strategies other countries have employed to disasterous effect and is one reason why the world trusts us and invests in us.

Is "balancing the budget over night" the strawman you need to build to avoid actually having to balance the budget?

It's not on the table, nobody has put that on the table. Just pointing that out.

What if interest rates go up? You know those things that the FED used to control before the real estate bubble. Now they just have the pedal pinned to the floor.

Interest rates definitely will go up if we default. if we act irresponsible. Other than that there really isn't much of a chance of that in the short to medium term. If you had a trillion dollars to invest in uncertain times.. Who do you really want to lend your money too.. Europe which has several members worse off than the US and any one of whom can sink the entire show. Russia whos economic future is actually quite bright, only they have that naste history of nationalizing foreign investment.. Including just recently with a rather large BP investment... China who doesn't even have a hard currency but still ties the value of the kwon to the dollar, oh and is entirely export driven for economic growth... with that lovely 12th century legal infrastructure; and again the nasty history of nationalizing foreigh investment... Japan who was twice as bad off as all the things you are objecting too about the US, before their tripple cataclism (eq, wave, meltdowns).

Dude, we get cheap interest rates because we merit them. because we compared the the rest of the world are still the safest investment.

What if prices spiral out of control due to inflation from the trillions of dollars already printed but not yet in circulation.

Inflation is coming... but inflation is prefferable to shrinking the gdp by 30-40% and quadropling the already high unemployment rate.

What if the rest of the world stops using the dollar as the reserve currency and stops buying debt. What if they already are starting too?

:doh: Dude you think China is carrying a trillion dollars worth of US debt because they are our buddies? That's what happens when you run massive trade surplusses for a decade. China sends their products over here and we send them dollars.. Dollars which are basically only redeamable at full value if they spend them in our economy. China doesn't want to spend them in our economy because they are affriad it will styfle some of their own economic growth in whatever sector they patrone. So they keep the dollars under their mattras and they buy government bonds.. The only investment which can absorb the hundreds of billions per quater our surplus is running.....

What happens if China stops "loaning" us dollars? Hell what happens if the United States stops buying Chinese crap? China already experiences about 2000 labor demonstrations a day across the country, and that's with 10% growth in GDP. If US trade was ended china's GDP which is entirely export driven would dry up to ZERO. No we are locked in this dance together.

The economic situation is a lot more fragile then that, only a fundamental shift in what govt responsibilities are can get things under control and save the dollar. otherwise, they will monetize this debt.

Which is idiotic... A fundimental shift in government responsiblities would harm us more than help us. Name another economically mature country who can even hold a candle to the US economically. There isn't one, we are the gold standard, and seriously we don't have an economic crisis here, we have an ideological one.

Sure we can pay it back later but it will be with dollars that are worthless.

Another thing people fail to realize. The dollar has been worthless since nixon took us off the gold standard in the early 70's. The dollar is worth exactly what people think it's worth nothing more. And if we default on our debt, it's going to be thought of less not more.

The fact that the FED is bailing out countries and banks around the world shows they are willing to sacrifice US interests, propping up a global system

Where have you been living for the last 70 years. US interests are global interests. If the global economy fails so do we all. We are among the most vulnerable to such an eventuallity. Of course we should be part of a solution, globally.

Even they know the situation is more serious then you would make it seem. This is not Japan, we have a problem here. Please lets get serious, we cannot just print our way out.

Yes it's not Japan, we are much much better off than Japan. We don't have an economic crisis here unless we create one be defaulting. We do have some managemable problems to take care off. The deficite is unsustainable, so we really need to shrink that bad boy. Our national infrastructure has really gone to ****, we need to do something about that too. Healthcare will eventually bankrupt us in the next 10-15 years... Need to fix that too. Obama care was a good start but more should be done. Finally Defense. When Clinton left office we outspent the next 16 greatest countries combined on defense. Bush almost tripled that. Today we outspend the entire globe on defense. We need to get control of that too. If we do all those things our future is bright, and we don't have to do them today, but we need to start today.

---------- Post added July-30th-2011 at 10:44 PM ----------

According the the Treasury, creditors are getting paid first. Even if we don't raise the debt limit, we won't default. Read below.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_16/Treasury-Priorities-List-Might-Cost-Votes-207819-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

Nope... targeted creditors will be paid first. 2/3rds of US debt is held domestically both privately, corporately, and publically debt. Obama has not said he would cover all those creditors. He won't have the money to do so.

It will be a disaster of huge proportions if we default even with the book jugling. Our congress will be to blame for a massive economic crisis and our contry will carry that blame both domestically and internationally.

[JMS]

So the debt deal seems like a pretty moderate piece of legislation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/us-usa-debt-deal-fb-idUSTRE7700OL20110801

The major components of the deal. With comments.

* The deal would allow President Barack Obama to raise the debt ceiling in three steps. Congress would get a chance to register its disapproval on two of these, but would not be able to block them unless it musters a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate -- an unlikely prospect.

This is the heighht of absurdity. The way congress handled this crisis taking it down to the last momments yet preserving their ability to grandstand.... It's why congresses popularity is in the toilet.

* It envisions spending cuts of roughly $2.4 trillion over 10 years, which Congress would approve in two steps -- an initial $917 billion when the deal passes Congress and another $1.5 trillion by the end of the year.

Which are extremely modest cuts considering we are running roughly 1.2 trillion deficit annually currently... ( down from 1.5 trillion under Bush 2007 and 2008 ).

Serious and reasonable cuts would go about 5-10% annually and compound.

* The first group of spending cuts would apply to the discretionary programs that Congress approves annually, covering everything from the military to food inspection.

We could cut 200 billion from the 3.7 Trillion 2012 budget and not even notice. So this deal is exactly as predicted... It's modest cuts, and a hold strategy to allow the economy to grow itself out of the problem. A plan which will be revisited in 2 years.

* Those programs would be capped each year for 10 years. The caps would be relatively modest at first to avoid stifling the shaky economy -- spending for the fiscal year that begins October 1 would be only $6 billion below the current level of $1.049 trillion. The caps would have a greater impact in later years, when it is hoped that the economy will have recovered.

Later years? this deal is only good for 2 years then it will have to be renegotiated.

* Some $350 billion of the $917 billion total would come from defense and other security programs which now account for more than half of all discretionary spending. Republicans are resisting this idea and it is one of the few areas of dispute left.

So we spend about 650 Billion on defense annually. cutting 350 over ten years or 35 billion a year is what a one time 6% cut and hold plan. extremely modest. The DoD has already cut 10% all by itself in expectation of fiscal responsibility coming down the pipe. This effectively is a 4% bump for them.

* Automatic across-the-board spending cuts would kick in if Congress does not observe the caps in coming years.

* A 12-member congressional committee, made up equally of Republicans and Democrats from each chamber, would be tasked with finding a further $1.5 trillion in budget savings.

This to me is the crux of the entire issue. The GOP wanted no new revenue ( taxes) and the Dems wanted a balanced approach to deficite reduction including new revenue.

"Budget Savings" in this prevision could mean taxes I'm guessing. Which means the "damage" for raising taxes could be laid at the feet of one or two republicans willing to step on their own crank for the good of the country...

* That committee could find savings from an overhaul of the tax code and restructuring benefit programs like Medicare -- the politically risky decisions that lawmakers have not been able to agree on so far.

Exactly.... new taxes, raising taxes; if the GOP can find one voice willing to put his butt out there; Looks like new taxes are potentially part of this agreement. Although one must say that they also may not be; and if not this was a win for the GOP's position.

* The committee would have to complete its work by November 23. Congress would have an up-or-down vote, with no modifications, on the committee's recommendations by December 23.

Another potential crisis day. Mark your calenders.

* If the committee cannot agree on at least $1.2 trillion in savings, or Congress rejects its findings, automatic spending cuts totaling that amount would kick in starting in 2013.

* Those cuts would fall equally on domestic and military programs. Medicare would face automatic cuts as well, but Social Security, Medicaid, federal employee pay, and benefits for veterans and the poor would be exempt.

Compromise... very modest cuts falling equally upon two programs either of which could absorb the full load of proposed cuts with almost no notice from the general public.

* The plan also calls for both the House and the Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by the end of the year. It is not likely to receive the two-thirds vote in each chamber needed for passage, but its inclusion will make it easier for conservatives to back the overall deal.

More window dressing for the illiterate and clueless. Has no chance of passing, neither party supports it. But they want to hold a vote purely for cheap theatrics and chest thumping. The GOP could have passed this any time under Bush all by themselves if they wanted. They want to appear like they want it now for political reasons. The dems don't want it either. But they'll vote and all complain about it's defeat. yuck.

[Larry]

"Budget Savings" in this prevision could mean taxes I'm guessing. Which means the "damage" for raising taxes could be laid at the feet of one or two republicans willing to step on their own crank for the good of the country...

But where would I find such a man?

Why am I asking you?

[JMS]

But where would I find such a man?

Why am I asking you?

You can always find at least one man, likely a senator who just was elected and won't have to run again until 2018 or 2016. Or a mormon republican house member who seat is safe because the mormons chased the dems out of Utah decades ago.

One can always find one safe member to do the parties dirty work. If the party leaderships wants a face saving way to agree to more taxes they this agreement gives it to them. If they don't then this agreement kicks the ball down the road for 2 more years.

[Baculus]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/28/us/charting-the-american-debt-crisis.html?src=me&ref=general

Wait a second, I keep hearing right-wingers say that "Obama has accumulated more debt than every other President combined!" You mean that isn't true? And Republican presidents have created more debt than all Democrat presidents combined? (I even heard some right-winger claim the debt was $16 trillion, and all created under Obama.)

So, let's see -- seeing how the GOP had no trouble with raising the debt ceiling and ignoring the debt under Bush, what does that say about their current rhetoric?

---------- Post added August-1st-2011 at 03:37 PM ----------

Ditto.

And as was pointed out, when Bush 2 was leaving office, he specifically said he'd authorize some heavily spending on the financial crisis if asked by Obama. Obama and his admin publically asked within an hour or so and Bush authorized it. Hundreds of billions were immediately added in the final days of Bush. In a way, it was a gift to Obama b/c he would've been heavily criticized for it.

I am sorry, but TARP I was not enacted as a "gift to Obama." That is an odd explanation and a transparent attempt to absolve Bush of responsibility for his late-term spending.

[Prosperity]

Lowering Taxes while increasing spending will always lead to that.

Step one is to stop spending. Only one side is proposing that.

No "side" is proposing to "stop spending"

thankfully too, cause that would be stupid

[JMS]

So, let's see -- seeing how the GOP had no trouble with raising the debt ceiling and ignoring the debt under Bush, what does that say about their current rhetoric?

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush then set about doubling the national debt and hiding most of his spending with off budget appropriations which barely registered with the "fiscal conservatives" who now seem to have found sobriety.

Under the Bush Jr's Presidency the debt ceiling was raised 7 times over eight years. The senate and house voted on 19 debt ceiling increases however with McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and Kyle voting in favor for most of the increases, and oddly enough Barak Obama voting against the last debt ceiling increase. A vote he today calls a mistake.

The five major debt increases under Bush and how the GOP current leadership voted... there were two more which were barried in other appropriations.

• June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
  
• May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
  
• November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
  
• March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
  
• September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
  

I am sorry, but TARP I was not enacted as a "gift to Obama." That is an odd explanation and a transparent attempt to absolve Bush of responsibility for his late-term spending.

You are correct although the 640 billion tarp package as I remember it was only half consumed under GW. GW did leave about half of the funds for Obama to distribute. Then again Bush also left the economy in free fall for Obama to handle too.