Who Increased The Debt?

Byrnzie

Discuss...

MookiesLaw

Is there a link to the source?

markin ball

It says its from the "Office of the Democratic Leader" on the bottom and it lists source as "Treasury Department".

inlet13

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/

Byrnzie

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:



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

Commy

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.

inlet13

Byrnzie wrote:

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



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...

he still stands

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?

Indifference

It is an old bogus chart:

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

he still stands

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.

MayDay Malone

inlet13 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

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



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_x

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 ...

mikepegg44

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.

he still stands

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.

MayDay Malone

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 stands

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.

polaris_x

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 ...

mikepegg44

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.

he still stands

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.

inlet13

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.

mikepegg44

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