Who Increased The Debt?

Byrnzie

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?

inlet13

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.

he still stands

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.

inlet13

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.

he still stands

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.

inlet13

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.

he still stands

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.

inlet13

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.

butterjam

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..

Kat

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.

whygohome

THEY HAVE ALL GROWN THE DEBT!! The only one who gets a pass is Clinton, because in 8 years the debt was only increased by roughly 1.6 trillion and he left office with a plan to bring it to zero by 2012.