Home› A Moving Train

Who Increased The Debt?

ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
edited January 2012 in A Moving Train
5684032538_71d8db3038.jpg

Discuss...
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • MookiesLawMookiesLaw Posts: 158
    Is there a link to the source?
  • markin ballmarkin ball Posts: 1,075
    It says its from the "Office of the Democratic Leader" on the bottom and it lists source as "Treasury Department".
    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."

    "With our thoughts we make the world"
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Look it up before you post dumb stuff like this. It's almost as dumb as Pelosi trying to use it in congress....

    Politifact shows it's 100% BS... and just to point out the conclusion in the link below, politifact says "Obama is the undisputed DEBT KING"...

    ...and that's in a couple years rather than a full term or eight years....

    ...anyways, reality:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited January 2012
    inlet13 wrote:
    Look it up before you post dumb stuff like this. It's almost as dumb as Pelosi trying to use it in congress....

    Politifact shows it's 100% BS... and just to point out the conclusion in the link below, politifact says "Obama is the undisputed DEBT KING"...

    ...and that's in a couple years rather than a full term or eight years....

    ...anyways, reality:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/

    I couldn't be bothered to look it up. Someone posted it on Facebook and I thought it looked interesting. I thought I'd leave it up to those of you more economically-minded souls to debate it's merits/de-merits.


    inlet13 wrote:
    Politifact shows it's 100% BS

    No it doesn't. It just interprets it differently. And this is what the amended chart looks like:

    5684032538_71d8db3038.jpg

    I.e, it's the same chart I posted above.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    i know reagan shifted 1 trillion from the public sector to the private. he got rid of things like welfare for single mothers and gave the money to techies in washington state. it gave us the tech boom, like the housing boom. which points to a fundamental flaw in the structure of our society. without a bubble to sustain it every 10 years or so it collapses.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Byrnzie wrote:
    No it doesn't. It just interprets it differently. And this is what the amended chart looks like:

    5684032538_71d8db3038.jpg

    I.e, it's the same chart I posted above.


    Here's a quote from politifact:

    "We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth."


    As I said, politifact says "Obama is the undisputed debt king".


    It's sad that people here need to rely on BS to try to promote their guy. Keep searching...
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    inlet13 wrote:
    As I said, politifact says "Obama is the undisputed debt king"...

    haha, now YOU are cherry picking your argument! That was in reference to a DIFFERENT statistic, the debt as a percentage of GDP. That number is obviously going to be horrible when the economy is in a recession the likes we haven't seen in over 70 years. Then, the article says
    of course, all this goes to show that statistics can be used -- and misused -- to bolster almost any argument.

    The FEDERAL DEBT, which is what we were all lead to believe this chart was about, increased by the following amounts for each president:
    Under Clinton: Increase of $1.54 trillion, or 37 percent
    Under George W. Bush: Increase of $4.899 trillion, or 86 percent
    Under Obama: Increase of $3.661 trillion, or 34 percent

    I'm not sure why they didn't include Reagan or Bush 1. So, while the numbers were skewed, the point holds true: W Bush increased the debt load by a far greater percentage than Clinton or Obama.

    edit: just found it in the article for Reagan:

    OMB has debt under Reagan increasing by 186 percent


    :shock:

    how do all the "faux conservatives" feel about that one? 186% vs Obama's 34%???

    edit #2: it appears the chart is essentially correct now?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • IndifferenceIndifference Posts: 2,725
    It is an old bogus chart:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

    SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
    Mexico=1, Colombia=1 



  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Indifference wrote:
    It is an old bogus chart:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

    the numbers are now correct in the original chart.

    the article you posted is bogus because it is talking about a different metric; debt as a % of GDP.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • MayDay MaloneMayDay Malone Posts: 641
    inlet13 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    No it doesn't. It just interprets it differently. And this is what the amended chart looks like:

    5684032538_71d8db3038.jpg

    I.e, it's the same chart I posted above.


    Here's a quote from politifact:

    "We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth."


    As I said, politifact says "Obama is the undisputed debt king".


    It's sad that people here need to rely on BS to try to promote their guy. Keep searching...


    Owned.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    MayDay Malone wrote:
    Owned.

    it's posts like this that really drag this board down ... i mean - you cherry pick the one post that supports your bias ... which is fine ... but the whole thing plays out further along which you completely ignore ... it's the one annoyance with discussing some things with certain people ... as soon as the discussion gets over their head or they have no rebuttal ... they just ignore it and then chime in when someone else says something to their liking even if it is completely false ...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    he still stands wrote:

    The FEDERAL DEBT, which is what we were all lead to believe this chart was about, increased by the following amounts for each president:
    Under Clinton: Increase of $1.54 trillion, or 37 percent
    Under George W. Bush: Increase of $4.899 trillion, or 86 percent
    Under Obama: Increase of $3.661 trillion, or 34 percent

    I'm not sure why they didn't include Reagan or Bush 1. So, while the numbers were skewed, the point holds true: W Bush increased the debt load by a far greater percentage than Clinton or Obama.

    edit: just found it in the article for Reagan:

    OMB has debt under Reagan increasing by 186 percent


    :shock:

    how do all the "faux conservatives" feel about that one? 186% vs Obama's 34%???

    edit #2: it appears the chart is essentially correct now?


    well, percentages are misleading here. as the debt has grown under presidents, that percent total will be lower. 34% of 10 trillion is 3.4 trillion

    186% of ~ 1 trillion is certainly a higher percentage, but is it more debt?

    gross numbers have Obama as the fastest growing debt president by shear numbers. almost 5 trillion by the end of FY 2012. That really isn't disputable. By the end of FY2012, he will have amassed = to or more than W in 8 years and I didn't think that would be possible. It isn't just about Obama himself, but was a terrible recession the right time to pass a health insurance reform bill?

    While that doesn't say much to me, as W was the worst offender of them all, running on a platform of small government and ballooning it when he got there...he has amassed more debt in total numbers than any other president in 4 years. It isn't just him alone that has done it, but a chart that refers to percentages of debt growth upon itself is ridiculous...as the debt grows the harder it is to get that number up. I think that is fairly obvious.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    well, percentages are misleading here. as the debt has grown under presidents, that percent total will be lower. 34% of 10 trillion is 3.4 trillion

    186% of ~ 1 trillion is certainly a higher percentage, but is it more debt?

    gross numbers have Obama as the fastest growing debt president by shear numbers. almost 5 trillion by the end of FY 2012. That really isn't disputable. By the end of FY2012, he will have amassed = to or more than W in 8 years and I didn't think that would be possible. It isn't just about Obama himself, but was a terrible recession the right time to pass a health insurance reform bill?

    While that doesn't say much to me, as W was the worst offender of them all, running on a platform of small government and ballooning it when he got there...he has amassed more debt in total numbers than any other president in 4 years. It isn't just him alone that has done it, but a chart that refers to percentages of debt growth upon itself is ridiculous...as the debt grows the harder it is to get that number up. I think that is fairly obvious.

    i agree, mostly. but you can't just go back in time and say that Reagan ONLY increased the debt load by $1.5 trillion compared to Obama's $5 trillion. First of all, we're paying hundreds of billions of dollars every year now just to finance the debt, which is bigger than ALL the debt that Reagan took on in 1980. Secondly, you don't take into consideration inflation and the time value of money. Third, most of the expenditures and income of the government were already in place when Obama took office, including a military budget that is 44% of our expenses.

    The exponential property of math is very interesting. do you know what percentage of growth is necessary for a sum to DOUBLE every ten (10) years?



    ..... 7% !!!


    it is like that old "wheat grains on the chess board" analogy. we can't continue to exponentially grow, whether it be consumption of finite resources OR federal debt load, at the rate we are.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • MayDay MaloneMayDay Malone Posts: 641
    polaris_x wrote:
    MayDay Malone wrote:
    Owned.

    it's posts like this that really drag this board down ... i mean - you cherry pick the one post that supports your bias ... which is fine ... but the whole thing plays out further along which you completely ignore ... it's the one annoyance with discussing some things with certain people ... as soon as the discussion gets over their head or they have no rebuttal ... they just ignore it and then chime in when someone else says something to their liking even if it is completely false ...


    Funny. Why would I spend my time debating a LIE? There are better threads, Polaris.

    This board cannot be dragged down any further. It is buried underneath the abyss.

    I submit that your personal attack on me, labeling me too stupid to understand the thread, is an age-old baiting tactic, used by people like you to drag down this board.

    Attack ignored. Good riddance.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    MayDay Malone wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    MayDay Malone wrote:
    Owned.

    it's posts like this that really drag this board down ... i mean - you cherry pick the one post that supports your bias ... which is fine ... but the whole thing plays out further along which you completely ignore ... it's the one annoyance with discussing some things with certain people ... as soon as the discussion gets over their head or they have no rebuttal ... they just ignore it and then chime in when someone else says something to their liking even if it is completely false ...


    Funny. Why would I spend my time debating a LIE? There are better threads, Polaris.

    This board cannot be dragged down any further. It is buried underneath the abyss.

    I submit that your personal attack on me, labeling me too stupid to understand the thread, is an age-old baiting tactic, used by people like you to drag down this board.

    Attack ignored. Good riddance.

    the chart that is now posted is correct.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    MayDay Malone wrote:
    Funny. Why would I spend my time debating a LIE? There are better threads, Polaris.

    This board cannot be dragged down any further. It is buried underneath the abyss.

    I submit that your personal attack on me, labeling me too stupid to understand the thread, is an age-old baiting tactic, used by people like you to drag down this board.

    Attack ignored. Good riddance.

    if you follow the thread - there is great discussion ... which you could either be part of or not ... although it is my belief that conservatives presidents are only conservative by name ... you don't see me propping up one side of the argument only ... just reading and learning the two sides ... if you feel like it's a lie - prove it ... but telling someone they got owned when they in fact did not is a trolling tactic ...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    he still stands wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    well, percentages are misleading here. as the debt has grown under presidents, that percent total will be lower. 34% of 10 trillion is 3.4 trillion

    186% of ~ 1 trillion is certainly a higher percentage, but is it more debt?

    gross numbers have Obama as the fastest growing debt president by shear numbers. almost 5 trillion by the end of FY 2012. That really isn't disputable. By the end of FY2012, he will have amassed = to or more than W in 8 years and I didn't think that would be possible. It isn't just about Obama himself, but was a terrible recession the right time to pass a health insurance reform bill?

    While that doesn't say much to me, as W was the worst offender of them all, running on a platform of small government and ballooning it when he got there...he has amassed more debt in total numbers than any other president in 4 years. It isn't just him alone that has done it, but a chart that refers to percentages of debt growth upon itself is ridiculous...as the debt grows the harder it is to get that number up. I think that is fairly obvious.

    i agree, mostly. but you can't just go back in time and say that Reagan ONLY increased the debt load by $1.5 trillion compared to Obama's $5 trillion. First of all, we're paying hundreds of billions of dollars every year now just to finance the debt, which is bigger than ALL the debt that Reagan took on in 1980. Secondly, you don't take into consideration inflation and the time value of money. Third, most of the expenditures and income of the government were already in place when Obama took office, including a military budget that is 44% of our expenses.

    The exponential property of math is very interesting. do you know what percentage of growth is necessary for a sum to DOUBLE every ten (10) years?



    ..... 7% !!!


    it is like that old "wheat grains on the chess board" analogy. we can't continue to exponentially grow, whether it be consumption of finite resources OR federal debt load, at the rate we are.


    I totally agree, the revisionist history in regards to Reagan's small government conservatism is obnoxious. I wasn't ignoring anything. But it is impossible to include all of the outliers when discussing debt growth. i was pointing out the fallacy of the chart. that is all. Which is why I included the statement, total debt.
    Government spending is one of the reasons why the dollar value isn't the same as it used to be...so using it as a reason why the government needs to spend more doesn't jive to me. It is the problem that the government brought on itself, and Obama has been involved since 2006 i believe.

    it will be at 5 trillion at the end of his first term. he can do something about it he has chosen not to make the tough cuts in future spending that are necessary...we will see if that is a good choice in the long run. Hopefully they are right, I just have a feeling they are wrong.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I totally agree, the revisionist history in regards to Reagan's small government conservatism is obnoxious. I wasn't ignoring anything. But it is impossible to include all of the outliers when discussing debt growth. i was pointing out the fallacy of the chart. that is all. Which is why I included the statement, total debt.
    Government spending is one of the reasons why the dollar value isn't the same as it used to be...so using it as a reason why the government needs to spend more doesn't jive to me. It is the problem that the government brought on itself, and Obama has been involved since 2006 i believe.

    it will be at 5 trillion at the end of his first term. he can do something about it he has chosen not to make the tough cuts in future spending that are necessary...we will see if that is a good choice in the long run. Hopefully they are right, I just have a feeling they are wrong.

    yeah, the chart is technically "correct" but definitely incomplete. Whenever you show ONLY the percentage, or ONLY the total dollars, you are trying to hide something. And yeah, you should also look at different metrics, like the debt percentage of GDP, in which Obama has failed immensely. Ugh, it is just so funny that people see that and yell "LIARS!" or call for Obama to "spend more!" By now you'd think everyone would know that statistics can be used to support your argument no matter what side you're on.

    I think we agree on most points, especially that Obama needs to cut spending and reign in the debt load. I also think he needs to generate more revenue, especially on high earners (like Romney!) but that's a much smaller issue I think than the expenditure side of the equation.

    The questions are; where do you cut spending? how will that affect the people that get that money? how will it affect the economy? considering we spend more on the military than the next 16 countries COMBINED, which amounts to 44 cents of the federal tax dollar, I'd think that would be the first place you look.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    polaris_x wrote:
    MayDay Malone wrote:
    Funny. Why would I spend my time debating a LIE? There are better threads, Polaris.

    This board cannot be dragged down any further. It is buried underneath the abyss.

    I submit that your personal attack on me, labeling me too stupid to understand the thread, is an age-old baiting tactic, used by people like you to drag down this board.

    Attack ignored. Good riddance.

    if you follow the thread - there is great discussion ... which you could either be part of or not ... although it is my belief that conservatives presidents are only conservative by name ... you don't see me propping up one side of the argument only ... just reading and learning the two sides ... if you feel like it's a lie - prove it ... but telling someone they got owned when they in fact did not is a trolling tactic ...


    No offense, but politifact, a fact checking organization, explained in very open terms "We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth". Yet, people here continue to harp on it. It's a very misleading chart produced by Nancy Pelosi. Read the link I posted, if you don't believe it. Or if you love partisan charts, try this one -

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/05/in-pictures-debt-by-president-obama-leads-the-pack/

    But, honestly, I think it's sad that people here are continuing to waste time with misleading stats. Is it those who think that chart is grabage, who has to prove it after a fact checker said that chart contained no "significant approximation of the truth". Has it gotten to that?

    Do you honestly believe Obama will NOT add more to the debt than any other President once his term will be complete? Seriously? Look up the data. He's basically doubled the debt. Or, in other words, in one term he most likely will have added more debt than 43 prior presidents.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/10/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-4/

    If you want to compare Presidents, do the math there and it will be pretty easy to see who's king. As Politifact, a fact checking organization proclaimed "Obama is the undisputed debt king".

    This is a sad, stupid thread based on a chart by a scumbag politician trying to sway the ignorant.


    P.S. I'm not trying to say that Reagan and the Bush's weren't scumbag debt princes either. They were.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    he still stands wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    I totally agree, the revisionist history in regards to Reagan's small government conservatism is obnoxious. I wasn't ignoring anything. But it is impossible to include all of the outliers when discussing debt growth. i was pointing out the fallacy of the chart. that is all. Which is why I included the statement, total debt.
    Government spending is one of the reasons why the dollar value isn't the same as it used to be...so using it as a reason why the government needs to spend more doesn't jive to me. It is the problem that the government brought on itself, and Obama has been involved since 2006 i believe.

    it will be at 5 trillion at the end of his first term. he can do something about it he has chosen not to make the tough cuts in future spending that are necessary...we will see if that is a good choice in the long run. Hopefully they are right, I just have a feeling they are wrong.

    yeah, the chart is technically "correct" but definitely incomplete. Whenever you show ONLY the percentage, or ONLY the total dollars, you are trying to hide something. And yeah, you should also look at different metrics, like the debt percentage of GDP, in which Obama has failed immensely. Ugh, it is just so funny that people see that and yell "LIARS!" or call for Obama to "spend more!" By now you'd think everyone would know that statistics can be used to support your argument no matter what side you're on.

    I think we agree on most points, especially that Obama needs to cut spending and reign in the debt load. I also think he needs to generate more revenue, especially on high earners (like Romney!) but that's a much smaller issue I think than the expenditure side of the equation.

    The questions are; where do you cut spending? how will that affect the people that get that money? how will it affect the economy? considering we spend more on the military than the next 16 countries COMBINED, which amounts to 44 cents of the federal tax dollar, I'd think that would be the first place you look.


    yep. I still think it is necessary to spend on defense, just not overseas which would drastically reduce the spending as well as war budgets...when you are off as far as we are and have been, over a trillion a year, we are in dangerous territory...I think inflation is going to further separate


    As far as raising revenue goes...the only thing that will truly raise revenue in the long run is having a robust economy. more people working more taxes paid. Raising them on specific people may help short term, but the spike will only last a few tax cycles if that . It is definitely more of a spending issue. Remember, you could take in about double the income tax they have collected and still not balance the 3.7 trillion dollar budget. That tells me tax increases will NOT be the solution. I don't know...i also don't want a large federal government so I am biased as to what may be causing the problems...but i think my bias is right :lol:
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    inlet13 wrote:
    No offense, but politifact, a fact checking organization, explained in very open terms "We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth".

    Do you think Politifact's word is carved in stone? 'He Still Stands' has explained, as I did previously, that the chart I posted is the amended/corrected chart. He also explained the other alleged discrepancies. Maybe you can respond to his points instead of parading the word of Politifact as if it's sacrosanct and final?
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Byrnzie wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    No offense, but politifact, a fact checking organization, explained in very open terms "We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth".

    Do you think Politifact's word is carved in stone?

    No, I don't think Politifact's word is carved in stone. I'm sure they are capable of making a mistake. That said, their job (the way they earn money) is to fact-check. Would I take Politifact at it's word over you (or anyone else on this board)? Yes. Why? They are a fact-checking organization that is paid to do it... and you, and most people here, are incredibly bias... and, further, I'm sure some people here are not very smart.

    Long story short - The chart is misleading. President Obama (the king of spending dolts) will add more to the debt in his one term than any other President in history. Right now, he's on pace to surpass in his 4 year term what Bush (another huge spending dolt) added in 8 years. That's fact.... Further, I bet he's already done it.

    The guy's swimming like Scrooge McDuck in bills.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    inlet13 wrote:
    No, I don't think Politifact's word is carved in stone. I'm sure they are capable of making a mistake. That said, their job (the way they earn money) is to fact-check. Would I take Politifact at it's word over you (or anyone else on this board)? Yes. Why? They are a fact-checking organization that is paid to do it... and you, and most people here, are incredibly bias... and, further, I'm sure some people here are not very smart.

    Long story short - The chart is misleading. President Obama (the king of spending dolts) will add more to the debt in his one term than any other President in history. Right now, he's on pace to surpass in his 4 year term what Bush (another huge spending dolt) added in 8 years. That's fact.... Further, I bet he's already done it.

    The guy's swimming like Scrooge McDuck in bills.

    but you see that the chart is correct, right?

    We're essentially talking about the exponential property of numbers here. In 40 years if a President increases the debt load by 1% and it is an increase of 100 trillion dollars, is that better or worse than when Reagan increased it 186% and the increase was 1 trillion dollars?

    I don't know. Neither are good, but it is easy to see that you can't really compare just the percentage or just the dollars. There's the time value of money to consider, the fact that today we spend something like $800 billion per year just on interest on the debt, and most importantly, WHERE IS THAT MONEY GOING?

    like I said earlier, if it increases by just 7% per year, it will double every ten years. NONE of those Presidents mentioned in the graph did a "good" job with the national debt in that sense.

    I'm just glad we're all fiscal conservatives and socially liberal. :D
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    he still stands wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    No, I don't think Politifact's word is carved in stone. I'm sure they are capable of making a mistake. That said, their job (the way they earn money) is to fact-check. Would I take Politifact at it's word over you (or anyone else on this board)? Yes. Why? They are a fact-checking organization that is paid to do it... and you, and most people here, are incredibly bias... and, further, I'm sure some people here are not very smart.

    Long story short - The chart is misleading. President Obama (the king of spending dolts) will add more to the debt in his one term than any other President in history. Right now, he's on pace to surpass in his 4 year term what Bush (another huge spending dolt) added in 8 years. That's fact.... Further, I bet he's already done it.

    The guy's swimming like Scrooge McDuck in bills.

    but you see that the chart is correct, right?

    No, it's not correct. First, the chart says "public debt", but it uses "gross federal debt". You can't do that with a straight face. It's a bold face lie regarding the data. This chart would look much, much worse for Obama, if that was not the case. Feel free to make that chart and see for yourself. Anyway, It should be using public debt. As the article I posted stated... According to OMB statistics, public debt rose by 70 percent under Bush, 16 percentage points more slowly than gross federal debt did. And according to the Treasury, the public debt rose by 53 percent under Obama, compared with the 34 percent rise in gross federal debt. As you can see, he's the debt king.

    Second, Obama hasn't even completed a term, so it's not really comparable to begin with. As of now (not complete term), he's at $15.2 trillion from up from $10.627 trillion. That is a 43% increase. Also, he'll add a lot more to it by the time his first term is complete. Further, who knows what will happen between now and then. A substantial increase could be added if a war begins in Iran. Arguably most importantly, you still should't compare one term to two term guys. You can't compare growth rates of 3 or 4 years to 8 years. It's not logical.

    Third, any economist would tell you the number one should look when discussing this is debt/GDP because it takes into account some of the other issues you mentioned (inflation, etc). That's looking at debt/economy. Here's how that data stacks out:

    Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
    George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
    Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
    George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
    Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

    Finally, the guy literally will have added over $5-7 trillion by the end of his first term. He inherited roughly $10 trillion. Do the math. This thread is dumb.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    inlet13 wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    No, I don't think Politifact's word is carved in stone. I'm sure they are capable of making a mistake. That said, their job (the way they earn money) is to fact-check. Would I take Politifact at it's word over you (or anyone else on this board)? Yes. Why? They are a fact-checking organization that is paid to do it... and you, and most people here, are incredibly bias... and, further, I'm sure some people here are not very smart.

    Long story short - The chart is misleading. President Obama (the king of spending dolts) will add more to the debt in his one term than any other President in history. Right now, he's on pace to surpass in his 4 year term what Bush (another huge spending dolt) added in 8 years. That's fact.... Further, I bet he's already done it.

    The guy's swimming like Scrooge McDuck in bills.

    but you see that the chart is correct, right?

    No, it's not correct. First, the chart says "public debt", but it uses "gross federal debt". You can't do that with a straight face. It's a bold face lie regarding the data. This chart would look much, much worse for Obama, if that was not the case. Feel free to make that chart and see for yourself. Anyway, It should be using public debt. As the article I posted stated... According to OMB statistics, public debt rose by 70 percent under Bush, 16 percentage points more slowly than gross federal debt did. And according to the Treasury, the public debt rose by 53 percent under Obama, compared with the 34 percent rise in gross federal debt. As you can see, he's the debt king.

    Second, Obama hasn't even completed a term, so it's not really comparable to begin with. As of now (not complete term), he's at $15.2 trillion from up from $10.627 trillion. That is a 43% increase. Also, he'll add a lot more to it by the time his first term is complete. Further, who knows what will happen between now and then. A substantial increase could be added if a war begins in Iran. Arguably most importantly, you still should't compare one term to two term guys. You can't compare growth rates of 3 or 4 years to 8 years. It's not logical.

    Third, any economist would tell you the number one should look when discussing this is debt/GDP because it takes into account some of the other issues you mentioned (inflation, etc). That's looking at debt/economy. Here's how that data stacks out:

    Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
    George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
    Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
    George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
    Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

    Finally, the guy literally will have added over $5-7 trillion by the end of his first term. He inherited roughly $10 trillion. Do the math. This thread is dumb.

    I should have said "it is correct in regards to the federal debt" ... which is what we have been talking about here. It is correct in that regard right?

    your stats don't really show me anything egregious about Obama v. anyone else. I don't know that being up 22% is much worse than Reagan's 15%. They're all complicit.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    he still stands wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:

    No, it's not correct. First, the chart says "public debt", but it uses "gross federal debt". You can't do that with a straight face. It's a bold face lie regarding the data. This chart would look much, much worse for Obama, if that was not the case. Feel free to make that chart and see for yourself. Anyway, It should be using public debt. As the article I posted stated... According to OMB statistics, public debt rose by 70 percent under Bush, 16 percentage points more slowly than gross federal debt did. And according to the Treasury, the public debt rose by 53 percent under Obama, compared with the 34 percent rise in gross federal debt. As you can see, he's the debt king.

    Second, Obama hasn't even completed a term, so it's not really comparable to begin with. As of now (not complete term), he's at $15.2 trillion from up from $10.627 trillion. That is a 43% increase. Also, he'll add a lot more to it by the time his first term is complete. Further, who knows what will happen between now and then. A substantial increase could be added if a war begins in Iran. Arguably most importantly, you still should't compare one term to two term guys. You can't compare growth rates of 3 or 4 years to 8 years. It's not logical.

    Third, any economist would tell you the number one should look when discussing this is debt/GDP because it takes into account some of the other issues you mentioned (inflation, etc). That's looking at debt/economy. Here's how that data stacks out:

    Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
    George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
    Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
    George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
    Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

    Finally, the guy literally will have added over $5-7 trillion by the end of his first term. He inherited roughly $10 trillion. Do the math. This thread is dumb.

    I should have said "it is correct in regards to the federal debt" ... which is what we have been talking about here. It is correct in that regard right?

    your stats don't really show me anything egregious about Obama v. anyone else. I don't know that being up 22% is much worse than Reagan's 15%. They're all complicit.

    It's pretty clear to me from your repetitive question that you really, really want this chart to be "correct". But, like I previously stated... It's not. I already pointed out that it's not factual in a number of areas and extremely misleading in others. I've stated the reasons for this. That's why it received a "Pants on Fire" rating on politifact. Even with the adjusted chart, it doesn't take care of all of the other problems with the chart, politifact agrees with me again there. So, let me repeat... no... this adjusted chart is not correct,... and further, it's misleading.

    As for your other comment on debt/GDP... Obama hasn't served a full-term yet and he's already outpaced what the highest spender in recent times did in 8 years. I agree that they are all complicit, and I never said they weren't. My point is solely that the guy in office now is horrible in this realm and the OP, and the thread, used 3rd grade stats to try to say he's not, which is factually wrong.

    Now, if you want to discuss Reagan, Bush and all the other money grabbers, I'm game. But, let's open a new thread for that.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    it is correct from a federal debt standpoint.

    you can say it is misleading and incomplete and I won't argue. but to call it a "lie" isn't fair. I read the graph several times today and didn't see the "public debt" part of it. I just read it as the federal deficit, which is what 99% of the people or media talk about when expressing concern of the matter of the federal debt.

    now, I agree that this country is spending too much and have stated that several times. Do you think Romney would swend any less? I don't. I think the only logical solution is to vote for Ron Paul if this is your #1 concern. It's up there for me, but my #1 concern is ending all the wars and spending a fraction on the military that we currently do, so that's why I'd vote for Ron Paul.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    he still stands wrote:
    it is correct from a federal debt standpoint.


    Sorry. But, once again, I would respectfully disagree again and say no, it's not.
    he still stands wrote:
    you can say it is misleading and incomplete and I won't argue. but to call it a "lie" isn't fair. I read the graph several times today and didn't see the "public debt" part of it. I just read it as the federal deficit, which is what 99% of the people or media talk about when expressing concern of the matter of the federal debt.

    Amongst numerous other issues - one can't print a chart, label something an axis on the chart and use numbers that don't go along with the the label on that x or y axis... and say it's "true". As far as calling it a "lie"... politifact called it "pants on fire". ... I mean... ha ha... it is a lie.... even the amended chart. The labels and data don't go with one another. One of the first things one should do when looking at a chart is look at the x and y axis immediately, I did and I knew it was a wrong right away.
    he still stands wrote:
    now, I agree that this country is spending too much and have stated that several times. Do you think Romney would swend any less? I don't. I think the only logical solution is to vote for Ron Paul if this is your #1 concern. It's up there for me, but my #1 concern is ending all the wars and spending a fraction on the military that we currently do, so that's why I'd vote for Ron Paul.

    I do think Romney would spend a slight bit less than Obama on average... but would still spend way, way too much too though. So, I agree that the only logical solution is to vote for Ron Paul. That and I agree that we're in too many wars right now. We dont' need more lost lives and lost money overseas.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • butterjambutterjam Posts: 215
    I think the answer to the question is Both Republican and Democratic presidents AND the Congress in office. Placing the entire blame on the president is just not accurate..
  • KatKat Posts: 4,904
    There are some brilliant discussion points on this thread but "owned" is not one of them. Don't do that again, anyone, in any thread on any side on any day, week or month. Thank you. It adds 0 to a discussion.
    Falling down,...not staying down
Sign In or Register to comment.