% Increase In Debt By President

[SwimExpert]

When your debt is half of your annual income, you need to cut spending. When your debt is MORE than your annual income, you have a problem. We have a problem but our president still spends like a drunken sailor.

So.....a person who takes out a $150,000 loan to buy a house "has a problem" if they make less than $75K a year?

 

[S.J.]

When your debt is half of your annual income, you need to cut spending. When your debt is MORE than your annual income, you have a problem. We have a problem but our president still spends like a drunken sailor.

So.....a person who takes out a $150,000 loan to buy a house "has a problem" if they make less than $75K a year?

If they have to borrow money every month in order to make the payment, yes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama has not been any better.

Indeed, Obama is on track to come pretty close to matching increase and contribution by a percentage of total debt. The latest budget calls for a half trillion deficit. A half trillion this coming year, and assuming another half trillion for his final year, Obama will have increased the debt by 59.7% of what it was when he took office, and be responsible for 37.4% of the total debt ($7.1 trillion total). That it is slightly lower than Bush's percentages is no justification for racking up $7.1 trillion of credit card bills.

Why do you keep saying Obama did this and that?

Why do you keep blaming Bush for the debt but give Obama a pass? Do you consider it a serious problem or not? If yes, what policies would you support to address it? Isn't it time to put up or shut up?

Bush cut taxes more than once while increasing spending year after year. He asked for and got his tax cuts; he asked for and got his spending increases.

When you spend more while reducing your ability to pay for what you're spending, you are to blame for the debt you accumulate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

About 2 trillion of the government spending since Obama became president is interest on the debt accumulated under past presidents.

That's the sort of expenditure you have to factor out in your quest to blame Obama for all of the deficits and debt accumulation over the past 6 years.

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

 

[The Rabbi]

About 2 trillion of the government spending since Obama became president is interest on the debt accumulated under past presidents.

That's the sort of expenditure you have to factor out in your quest to blame Obama for all of the deficits and debt accumulation over the past 6 years.

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

 

[Stephanie]

Holy smokes, they are now pulling all the LIES out of their asses.

They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this with so many ill informed people in this country.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Holy smokes, they are now pulling all the LIES out of their asses.

They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this with so many ill informed people in this country.

The figures quoted are correct, also the percentages. Where is the lie, oh, Staph Infection?

 

[NYcarbineer]

About 2 trillion of the government spending since Obama became president is interest on the debt accumulated under past presidents.

That's the sort of expenditure you have to factor out in your quest to blame Obama for all of the deficits and debt accumulation over the past 6 years.

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

It proves you were full of shit to claim I couldn't prove it.

Apparently you've forgotten what my point was. My point was that's how much Obama's spending goes to interest on other president's debt.

I said about 2 trillion. When you subtract out roughly what portion is paid on debt accumulated since 2009, that's what you get.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

It proves you were full of shit to claim I couldn't prove it.

Apparently you've forgotten what my point was. My point was that's how much Obama's spending goes to interest on other president's debt.

I said about 2 trillion. When you subtract out roughly what portion is paid on debt accumulated since 2009, that's what you get.

Correct. For had Obama absolutely held a zero line on the budget and had a balanced budget every year (something that no president has ever had througout his entire administration), then the debt would still have automatically risen by 2 T, just because of the interest. That brings us to 12.4 T right there.

But so many cons live in a sort of la-la land and forget how expensive the interest itself is. It is in and of itself a monstrum. But hey, why disturb their weird fantasy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

It proves you were full of shit to claim I couldn't prove it.

Apparently you've forgotten what my point was. My point was that's how much Obama's spending goes to interest on other president's debt.

I said about 2 trillion. When you subtract out roughly what portion is paid on debt accumulated since 2009, that's what you get.

Look up the word "fungible" and get back to me.

 

[The Rabbi]

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

It proves you were full of shit to claim I couldn't prove it.

Apparently you've forgotten what my point was. My point was that's how much Obama's spending goes to interest on other president's debt.

I said about 2 trillion. When you subtract out roughly what portion is paid on debt accumulated since 2009, that's what you get.

Correct. For had Obama absolutely held a zero line on the budget and had a balanced budget every year (something that no president has ever had througout his entire administration), then the debt would still have automatically risen by 2 T, just because of the interest. That brings us to 12.4 T right there.

But so many cons live in a sort of la-la land and forget how expensive the interest itself is. It is in and of itself a monstrum. But hey, why disturb their weird fantasy.

You're an ignoramus. Like that's news.
If he had a balanced budget debt would not increase at all. That's like the definition of balanced budget.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

It proves you were full of shit to claim I couldn't prove it.

Apparently you've forgotten what my point was. My point was that's how much Obama's spending goes to interest on other president's debt.

I said about 2 trillion. When you subtract out roughly what portion is paid on debt accumulated since 2009, that's what you get.

Correct. For had Obama absolutely held a zero line on the budget and had a balanced budget every year (something that no president has ever had througout his entire administration), then the debt would still have automatically risen by 2 T, just because of the interest. That brings us to 12.4 T right there.

But so many cons live in a sort of la-la land and forget how expensive the interest itself is. It is in and of itself a monstrum. But hey, why disturb their weird fantasy.

You're an ignoramus. Like that's news.
If he had a balanced budget debt would not increase at all. That's like the definition of balanced budget.

So, shaygetz, even if the budget were to balance, you still have to pay interest on already existing debt. Duh.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[kiwiman127]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Because it makes Obama look good, right. You're a nudnik and a half. Like that's news.
The figures are wrong anyway. Debt was 10T when Obama took office. It's 18T today.
Only liberals can claim 5 is more than 6.

Actually the National Debt on the last day of George W Bush's last fiscal year was 11,909,829,003,511.75. but deduct $253 billion which was spend via the Economic Stimulus Act and you get 11,656,829,511.75 so Rabbi's math is more than slightly off. Way to go Rabbi, being the usually intellectually honest guy that you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interest expense on the debt:

2014 $430,812,121,372.05
2013 $415,688,781,248.40
2012 $359,796,008,919.49
2011 $454,393,280,417.03
2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

Happy now? lolol

You understand that doesnt prove your point, right?

It proves you were full of shit to claim I couldn't prove it.

Apparently you've forgotten what my point was. My point was that's how much Obama's spending goes to interest on other president's debt.

I said about 2 trillion. When you subtract out roughly what portion is paid on debt accumulated since 2009, that's what you get.

Correct. For had Obama absolutely held a zero line on the budget and had a balanced budget every year (something that no president has ever had througout his entire administration), then the debt would still have automatically risen by 2 T, just because of the interest. That brings us to 12.4 T right there.

But so many cons live in a sort of la-la land and forget how expensive the interest itself is. It is in and of itself a monstrum. But hey, why disturb their weird fantasy.

You're an ignoramus. Like that's news.
If he had a balanced budget debt would not increase at all. That's like the definition of balanced budget.

So, shaygetz, even if the budget were to balance, you still have to pay interest on already existing debt. Duh.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I see you are really really stupid and need intense tutoring. Unfortunately I didnt take Special Ed classes so I may not be of much use to you.
But I will point out "debt service" is an item in every budget.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Because it makes Obama look good, right. You're a nudnik and a half. Like that's news.
The figures are wrong anyway. Debt was 10T when Obama took office. It's 18T today.
Only liberals can claim 5 is more than 6.

Actually the National Debt on the last day of George W Bush's last fiscal year was 11,909,829,003,511.75. but deduct $253 billion which was spend via the Economic Stimulus Act and you get 11,656,829,511.75 so Rabbi's math is more than slightly off. Way to go Rabbi, being the usually intellectually honest guy that you are.

You need to post a chart to prove how stupid and wrong you are.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Because it makes Obama look good, right. You're a nudnik and a half. Like that's news.
The figures are wrong anyway. Debt was 10T when Obama took office. It's 18T today.
Only liberals can claim 5 is more than 6.

Actually the National Debt on the last day of George W Bush's last fiscal year was 11,909,829,003,511.75. but deduct $253 billion which was spend via the Economic Stimulus Act and you get 11,656,829,511.75 so Rabbi's math is more than slightly off. Way to go Rabbi, being the usually intellectually honest guy that you are.

Yes, but it was over that on January 19, 2009.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[007]

No it isn't. The debt, as a percentage of gdp is the CORRECT way to measure it.

After thinking long and hard I've come to the conclusion that you are unfortunately wrong. The debt as a percentage of the GDP has swung up and down, at times dramatically, all while the hard debt has perpetually increased. It seems to me that debt as a percentage of the GDP is a consequence of multiple factors (most directly the strength of the growth of the economy), and as such is not a "correct" way to measure debt increases. That is not to say that it's not an important factor to be aware of. It seems that the growth of the hard debt, as well as the percentage of the GDP as a measure of debt are both indicators of the health of the economy, though neither is all telling.

Let's put it this way.
If you owe 10,000 but earn 5,000 a year are you in good shape or bad? Obviously bad.
If you owe 1M but earn 1M/year are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 10k but own stuff worth 5k are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 1M but own stuff worth 10M are you in good shape or bad?

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is a valuable measure, probably the only valid one.

Correct, and this is what it looks like under Barry the kenyan radical marxist...

 

[The Rabbi]

No it isn't. The debt, as a percentage of gdp is the CORRECT way to measure it.

After thinking long and hard I've come to the conclusion that you are unfortunately wrong. The debt as a percentage of the GDP has swung up and down, at times dramatically, all while the hard debt has perpetually increased. It seems to me that debt as a percentage of the GDP is a consequence of multiple factors (most directly the strength of the growth of the economy), and as such is not a "correct" way to measure debt increases. That is not to say that it's not an important factor to be aware of. It seems that the growth of the hard debt, as well as the percentage of the GDP as a measure of debt are both indicators of the health of the economy, though neither is all telling.

Let's put it this way.
If you owe 10,000 but earn 5,000 a year are you in good shape or bad? Obviously bad.
If you owe 1M but earn 1M/year are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 10k but own stuff worth 5k are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 1M but own stuff worth 10M are you in good shape or bad?

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is a valuable measure, probably the only valid one.

Correct, and this is what it looks like under Barry the kenyan radical marxist...

And this is while revenue to the feds reaches record levels. The deficit is still higher than when the recession started. Which tells you how much the Dems are spending on crap policies.

 

[007]

But I won't lay ALL blame on obama either. It takes ALL the government to spend this nation into financial collapse, which is all but INEVITABLE at this point, because we will NEVER be able to pay down the debt, and soon we won't be able to pay the interest on the debt either... that's when the shit hits the fan, and it's coming. It's a train wreck in motion and there's virtually NOTHING that can be done to stop it... unless our government is planning on just waving the magic wand and declaring it ALL GONE... BANKRUPTCY... SORRY LENDERS... YOU'RE FUCKED... THANKS FOR THE LOANS ANYWAY CHINA.

 

[007]

And here is what WE owe, EACH of us... and... ya... THANKS OBAMA... great job on the economy you fucking SOCIALIST FREAK...