Democrats Can't Be Serious.Now They Are Concerned Over The Debt And Deficit? Laughable?

[Faun]

Bush doubled it and Reagan tripled it. Where was your outrage then?

Simple question for you, Faun...

If one person increase the debt they owe from $5 to $15 and another increases the debt they owe from $100 to $200...who's incurred the most debt?

You're painfully rightarded asking such a question with nominal figures. To give you an idea of just how stupid you look using nominal figures.... in his12 years in office, FDR added about $236 billion which included massive deficits caused by the Great Depression and WWII.

Yet FDR's $236 billion in 12 years is less than ¼ of what Bush added in just his final year in office alone. According to you, FDR, who spiked the debt like no other, didn't add much debt at all.

To start with, I'm going to adjust FDR's numbers for inflation which you've failed to do! Or do you not grasp the fact that a 1936 dollar had a very different value than a 1996 dollar?

You've failed to address my point, Faun. You use a misleading statistic...that Reagan tripled the debt as opposed to Obama only doubling it to "prove" that Obama was somehow less of a debt incurring President than Reagan was!

You're fucking deranged.

Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.

And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.

You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?

I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!

No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.

<smh>

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple question for you, Faun...

If one person increase the debt they owe from $5 to $15 and another increases the debt they owe from $100 to $200...who's incurred the most debt?

You're painfully rightarded asking such a question with nominal figures. To give you an idea of just how stupid you look using nominal figures.... in his12 years in office, FDR added about $236 billion which included massive deficits caused by the Great Depression and WWII.

Yet FDR's $236 billion in 12 years is less than ¼ of what Bush added in just his final year in office alone. According to you, FDR, who spiked the debt like no other, didn't add much debt at all.

To start with, I'm going to adjust FDR's numbers for inflation which you've failed to do! Or do you not grasp the fact that a 1936 dollar had a very different value than a 1996 dollar?

You've failed to address my point, Faun. You use a misleading statistic...that Reagan tripled the debt as opposed to Obama only doubling it to "prove" that Obama was somehow less of a debt incurring President than Reagan was!

You're fucking deranged.

Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.

And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.

You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?

I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!

No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.

<smh>

The only way that you can possibly make the case that Reagan increased the national debt more than Obama did is use percentage of increase, Faun! That works for fans of Obama because the spending that was taking place when Barry took office was enormous as Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress tried to use government stimulus to avert a total collapse of our financial institutions! Obama didn't increase that level of spending...HE SIMPLY KEPT IT AT THE INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IT WAS AT IN 2008 FOR MOST OF HIS TWO TERMS!

 

[SeaGal]

Folks like I made small fortunes with Obama at the head Maybe you would blame Yellen but it was on Obamas watch Now you want me to bite the hand that fed me?? You must be a republican

So what yer sayin' is...I got mine, screw the rest of the country? You must be a Democrat.

 

[Faun]

75 straight months of triple digit job gains and raise taxes ?? On the million and billionaires who really were getting richer was a bad thing??

Raising taxes on ANYONE in the midst of a recession is idiotic economic policy, Edward. It's only going to do one thing and that's slow economic growth. That's the kind of thing you learn about as a college undergrad taking entry level Econ classes...something that Obama OBVIOUSLY never had as part of his college curriculum!

Do ya ever stop lying, ya con tool?

Ever???

"The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of the recession because that would just suck up and take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole." ~ Barack Obama

He said that, Faun...and yet he wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire...which is essentially raising taxes! So all you've proven is that Barry was two faced...saying one thing while actually trying to do something else!

Quote him saying he wanted to let Bush's tax cuts expire during a recession....

Video of obama calling for the bush tax cuts to expire - - Yahoo Video Search Results

I didn't see which of those videos showed him calling to end the Bush tax cuts during a recession. Can't you prove that he did?

 

[edward37]

Folks like I made small fortunes with Obama at the head Maybe you would blame Yellen but it was on Obamas watch Now you want me to bite the hand that fed me?? You must be a republican

So what yer sayin' is...I got mine, screw the rest of the country? You must be a Democrat.

No Sea Millions more did well too with their IRA's and 401K's rescued from the gwb republican screw up Just because you were mired in the waste the republicans left ,don't blame those who did well

 

[Faun]

You're painfully rightarded asking such a question with nominal figures. To give you an idea of just how stupid you look using nominal figures.... in his12 years in office, FDR added about $236 billion which included massive deficits caused by the Great Depression and WWII.

Yet FDR's $236 billion in 12 years is less than ¼ of what Bush added in just his final year in office alone. According to you, FDR, who spiked the debt like no other, didn't add much debt at all.

To start with, I'm going to adjust FDR's numbers for inflation which you've failed to do! Or do you not grasp the fact that a 1936 dollar had a very different value than a 1996 dollar?

You've failed to address my point, Faun. You use a misleading statistic...that Reagan tripled the debt as opposed to Obama only doubling it to "prove" that Obama was somehow less of a debt incurring President than Reagan was!

You're fucking deranged.

Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.

And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.

You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?

I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!

No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.

<smh>

The only way that you can possibly make the case that Reagan increased the national debt more than Obama did is use percentage of increase, Faun! That works for fans of Obama because the spending that was taking place when Barry took office was enormous as Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress tried to use government stimulus to avert a total collapse of our financial institutions! Obama didn't increase that level of spending...HE SIMPLY KEPT IT AT THE INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IT WAS AT IN 2008 FOR MOST OF HIS TWO TERMS!

Show the numbers then of Reagan's debt vs. Obama's...

 

[edward37]

To start with, I'm going to adjust FDR's numbers for inflation which you've failed to do! Or do you not grasp the fact that a 1936 dollar had a very different value than a 1996 dollar?

You've failed to address my point, Faun. You use a misleading statistic...that Reagan tripled the debt as opposed to Obama only doubling it to "prove" that Obama was somehow less of a debt incurring President than Reagan was!

You're fucking deranged.

Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.

And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.

You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?

I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!

No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.

<smh>

The only way that you can possibly make the case that Reagan increased the national debt more than Obama did is use percentage of increase, Faun! That works for fans of Obama because the spending that was taking place when Barry took office was enormous as Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress tried to use government stimulus to avert a total collapse of our financial institutions! Obama didn't increase that level of spending...HE SIMPLY KEPT IT AT THE INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IT WAS AT IN 2008 FOR MOST OF HIS TWO TERMS!

Show the numbers then of Reagan's debt vs. Obama's...

PROOF?
Federal Spending Grew More Under Bush and Reagan than Under Obama

• 

179 COMMENTS
TAGS Taxes and SpendingU.S. HistoryPolitical Theory

02/10/2017Ryan McMaken
Now that 2016 is gone and President Obama is a thing of the past, we can take a look back at just how much government spending grew during his tenure. It seems that in his eight year tenure, Obama never managed to top the enormous increases in government spending that occurred under presidents Reagan and George Bush. In fact, Obama doesn't even come close.

When we examine the federal spending that occurred under Obama, we find that it increased 15.8 percent from the 3.3 trillion in spending of Bush's final year (i.e., 2008) to the 3.8 trillion of Obama's final year of 2016.

Using this same method, we find federal spending increased 33.3 percent from the end of Clinton's term to the end of Bush's term.

The first graph shows how much federal outlays increased during each president's term since Lyndon Johnson:

Source: US Office of Management and Budget, FRED, adjusted for inflation using CPI for all urban consumers.

Lyndon Johnson is so far the biggest spender since the Second World War, and he grew the budget 40 percent over his one-and-a-half terms — a feat that is impressively bad. Johnson combined massive amounts of war spending and spending on social programs to greatly expand government programs and government spending.

Since Johnson, however, it's been Ford, Reagan, and Bush that are our biggest spenders, with Bush somewhat replicating Johnson's "Guns and Butter" agenda of combining massive amounts of military spending with greater social spending.

It was George W. Bush, after all, who pushed through the Medicare D program to expand government spending on health care, and it was Bush — who ran as "the education president" — who expanded federal spending on the Department of Education beyond what any other president has done. Meanwhile, Bush's war spending increased rapidly.

Moreover, most of that growth occurred when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House, from 2001 to 2006. Over that six year period, federal spending increased 26 percent.

With Obama, however, federal spending largely went nowhere between 2009 and 2016. Much of the growth over the Obama terms can be attributed to the large jump in federal spending that occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. It should be noted, however, that our calculations here somewhat overstate Obama's spending and understate Bush's spending. That is, George W. Bush supported large amounts of federal "stimulus" — such as Bush's bailout of auto makers — which ended up in the 2009 budget. For the sake of simplicity, we'll attribute all of that stimulus spending to Obama since it shows up in the 2009 fiscal year — which began under Bush on October 1, 2008. Even when we do this, however, Obama's spending growth amounted to 15.8 percent, which places it fourth behind Reagan, Bush, and Ford.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tax cuts are the crack of politics.

 

[Fiero425]

To start with, I'm going to adjust FDR's numbers for inflation which you've failed to do! Or do you not grasp the fact that a 1936 dollar had a very different value than a 1996 dollar?

You've failed to address my point, Faun. You use a misleading statistic...that Reagan tripled the debt as opposed to Obama only doubling it to "prove" that Obama was somehow less of a debt incurring President than Reagan was!

You're fucking deranged.

Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.

And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.

You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?

I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!

No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.

<smh>

The only way that you can possibly make the case that Reagan increased the national debt more than Obama did is use percentage of increase, Faun! That works for fans of Obama because the spending that was taking place when Barry took office was enormous as Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress tried to use government stimulus to avert a total collapse of our financial institutions! Obama didn't increase that level of spending...HE SIMPLY KEPT IT AT THE INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IT WAS AT IN 2008 FOR MOST OF HIS TWO TERMS!

Show the numbers then of Reagan's debt vs. Obama's...

"Supply-side" economics was all the rage back then! It made so much sense to give tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses, but it obviously came with a cost since Defense budgets increased precipitously during the COLD WAR! Reagan was the worst b/c he was so FOS seeing as he actually increased taxes 13 times calling them fees and revenue enhancers! There's a sucker born every moment, but Reps have been the most gullible attempting to put Ronnie on Mt. Rushmore! It wasn't until "The Gipper" that deficits hit $100's of Millions, but always talking about a balanced budget amendment! So much "bait & switch" I gave up on that party over 30 yrs ago!

 

[The Original Tree]

not once did Obama bring up the debt and deficit of which was only getting worse during his 8 year recession,,,but hey,,I will take 400,000 dollars from Wall Street....

Someone had to fund all of that 1% economic growth for 8 years while The Leftist Elite grew more wealthy than ever from shipping jobs overseas.

Got to love Globalism.....

 

[edward37]

Tax cuts are the crack of politics.

and eliminating deductions for state and local taxes is like murder for high tax areas like NY and Cal

 

[The Original Tree]

not once did Obama bring up the debt and deficit of which was only getting worse during his 8 year recession,,,but hey,,I will take 400,000 dollars from Wall Street....

Someone had to fund all of that 1% economic growth for 8 years while The Leftist Elite grew more wealthy than ever from shipping jobs overseas.

Got to love Globalism.....

 

[regent]

The usual history seems to be Republicans leave a recession or depression when they leave office. Democrats are then elected to repair the damage, which costs a bundle, When things look normal again we elect Republicans, and get a replay.

 

[Thinker101]

You're fucking deranged.

Your question was based on nominal figures. I point that out to you while I explain why real figures are necessary for such comparisons, and here you are, talking about real figures as though I didn't just use FDR as an example of why real figures are used.

And yes, I addressed your point. I pointed out your question was retarded because it's based on nominal figures.

You compare 1930's dollars to 1990's dollars without adjusting for inflation but my pointing that out is "retarded"?

I used to be able to buy a Hershey bar for a nickel...now they cost a dollar and ten cents! What's retarded is basing your economic arguments on numbers that AREN'T adjusted for inflation!

No, you're retarded because the reason I did that was to exemplify how retarded you were for using nominal figures in determining Obama increased the debt more than Reagan, dollar to dollar. Now you're proving you're too retarded to comprehend why I used nominal figures with my FDR example.

<smh>

The only way that you can possibly make the case that Reagan increased the national debt more than Obama did is use percentage of increase, Faun! That works for fans of Obama because the spending that was taking place when Barry took office was enormous as Bush and a Democratically controlled Congress tried to use government stimulus to avert a total collapse of our financial institutions! Obama didn't increase that level of spending...HE SIMPLY KEPT IT AT THE INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVELS IT WAS AT IN 2008 FOR MOST OF HIS TWO TERMS!

Show the numbers then of Reagan's debt vs. Obama's...

PROOF?
Federal Spending Grew More Under Bush and Reagan than Under Obama

• 

179 COMMENTS
TAGS Taxes and SpendingU.S. HistoryPolitical Theory

02/10/2017Ryan McMaken
Now that 2016 is gone and President Obama is a thing of the past, we can take a look back at just how much government spending grew during his tenure. It seems that in his eight year tenure, Obama never managed to top the enormous increases in government spending that occurred under presidents Reagan and George Bush. In fact, Obama doesn't even come close.

When we examine the federal spending that occurred under Obama, we find that it increased 15.8 percent from the 3.3 trillion in spending of Bush's final year (i.e., 2008) to the 3.8 trillion of Obama's final year of 2016.

Using this same method, we find federal spending increased 33.3 percent from the end of Clinton's term to the end of Bush's term.

The first graph shows how much federal outlays increased during each president's term since Lyndon Johnson:

Source: US Office of Management and Budget, FRED, adjusted for inflation using CPI for all urban consumers.

Lyndon Johnson is so far the biggest spender since the Second World War, and he grew the budget 40 percent over his one-and-a-half terms — a feat that is impressively bad. Johnson combined massive amounts of war spending and spending on social programs to greatly expand government programs and government spending.

Since Johnson, however, it's been Ford, Reagan, and Bush that are our biggest spenders, with Bush somewhat replicating Johnson's "Guns and Butter" agenda of combining massive amounts of military spending with greater social spending.

It was George W. Bush, after all, who pushed through the Medicare D program to expand government spending on health care, and it was Bush — who ran as "the education president" — who expanded federal spending on the Department of Education beyond what any other president has done. Meanwhile, Bush's war spending increased rapidly.

Moreover, most of that growth occurred when the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House, from 2001 to 2006. Over that six year period, federal spending increased 26 percent.

With Obama, however, federal spending largely went nowhere between 2009 and 2016. Much of the growth over the Obama terms can be attributed to the large jump in federal spending that occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. It should be noted, however, that our calculations here somewhat overstate Obama's spending and understate Bush's spending. That is, George W. Bush supported large amounts of federal "stimulus" — such as Bush's bailout of auto makers — which ended up in the 2009 budget. For the sake of simplicity, we'll attribute all of that stimulus spending to Obama since it shows up in the 2009 fiscal year — which began under Bush on October 1, 2008. Even when we do this, however, Obama's spending growth amounted to 15.8 percent, which places it fourth behind Reagan, Bush, and Ford.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...ident-obama-has-outspent-last-five-presidents

 

[edward37]

not once did Obama bring up the debt and deficit of which was only getting worse during his 8 year recession,,,but hey,,I will take 400,000 dollars from Wall Street....

Someone had to fund all of that 1% economic growth for 8 years while The Leftist Elite grew more wealthy than ever from shipping jobs overseas.

Got to love Globalism.....

and the low cost of mdse shipped to America didn't benefit American shoppers?

 

[SeaGal]

No Sea Millions more did well too with their IRA's and 401K's rescued from the gwb republican screw up Just because you were mired in the waste the republicans left ,don't blame those who did well

The stock market has done very well. But what happened to the income gap?...and wages...do you know?...do you care? Have most Americans made a small fortune?...or just a few. Obama's hand fed you wealth? The DOW reached its all time high closing in March - shall we thank Trump?

Over the last 8 years the debt increased by 9.3 Trillion. If that does not concern you, and you don't consider it a problem for the economic health of the country - that's fine. We'll put you on the record as being unconcerned about debts and deficits as long as your wealth grows But it concerned Obama...at one time...he campaigned on it. And at one time it concerned the Democrats - they campaigned on it.

So debt and deficit matter, or they do not - your personal gain in wealth notwithstanding.

 

[edward37]

No Sea Millions more did well too with their IRA's and 401K's rescued from the gwb republican screw up Just because you were mired in the waste the republicans left ,don't blame those who did well

The stock market has done very well. But what happened to the income gap?...and wages...do you know?...do you care? Have most Americans made a small fortune?...or just a few. Obama's hand fed you wealth? The DOW reached its all time high closing in March - shall we thank Trump?

Over the last 8 years the debt increased by 9.3 Trillion. If that does not concern you, and you don't consider it a problem for the economic health of the country - that's fine. We'll put you on the record as being unconcerned about debts and deficits as long as your wealth grows But it concerned Obama...at one time...he campaigned on it. And at one time it concerned the Democrats - they campaigned on it.

So debt and deficit matter, or they do not - your personal gain in wealth notwithstanding.

When has the debt decreased?? under Reagan? GWB ?

 

[SeaGal]

When has the debt decreased?? under Reagan? GWB ?

Irrelevant. Pay attention.

Obama called a sitting president irresponsible and unpatriotic for adding 4+Trillion to the debt, says he took out a credit card from the bank of China in the names of our children - then proceeds to add over 9 Trillion himself.

I repeat, debt and deficits as Obama defined them matter or they do not - your personal gain not withstanding. This isn't really a partisan issue - where do you stand?

 

[edward37]

When has the debt decreased?? under Reagan? GWB ?

Irrelevant. Pay attention.

Obama called a sitting president irresponsible and unpatriotic for adding 4+Trillion to the debt, says he took out a credit card from the bank of China in the names of our children - then proceeds to add over 9 Trillion himself.

I repeat, debt and deficits as Obama defined them matter or they do not - your personal gain not withstanding. This isn't really a partisan issue - where do you stand?

Extenuating circumstances do arise Obama didn't have the luxury of an economy clinton left gwb allowing him to give tax breaks etc etc BUT he did the best he could do with a nasty repub congress who's only aim in life was to make obama look bad

 

[RealDave]

And when us "Normal People/Conservatives" watch the loonies on any news cable outlet "Pretend To Show Concern" over what may happen when Trump lowers all taxes, aren't we all talking back to our flatscreens, maybe yelling back..."You Got To Be F--------King Kidding Me".
Remember in 2009 when the Democrats were out to steal from the middle class and borrow a few trillion dollars from our kids? And they just kept borrowing about a trillion a year to pay our expenses while lining their own pockets? And now they are worried about the debt and deficit? Need we say more?

I remember 2009. We were sinking in the God Damn BUSH recession you stupid shit. A recession that was already set to create a trillion plus deficit in 2009.


It was your hero George W Bush that came into office with a SURPLUS & left with the worst recession in 80 years.

It was Republicans that passed two unfunded tax cuts and a grossly unfunded expansion to Medicare & Two unfunded wars.

It is Your orange hero that wants to slash taxes with no clue how to pas for it. What dioes he care what it does, he'll make hundreds of millions.