Reagan

[Windship]

reagan, the actor, was only good for the wealthy...shocking!!

 

[bripat9643]

reagan, the actor, was only good for the wealthy...shocking!!

You first graph doesn't even have any labels on the axis, so what the hell is it supposed to tell us?

Your post doesn't prove jack shit.

 

[Windship]

Does Obama have the ‘worst’ record of any president on the national debt?




By Glenn Kessler December 8, 2014
during a speech. As we have frequently pointed out, context is important when talking about “worst” records, especially with regard to a subject such as the national debt, which can span decades, even centuries.

It’s also important to remember that it’s a bit silly to attribute all of the increases — or decreases — in the national debt to a president’s policies. It’s not as if everything magically changes the moment a president takes the oath of office; in Obama’s case, he inherited a recession that sent government revenue plunging in the first months of his presidency. Bill Clinton frequently brags about creating a budget surplus, but that was partly a result of the gusher of revenue that accompanied the technology boom in the mid-1990s.

Time for a refresher course!

The Facts
Sean Spicer, the RNC’s communication director, defended Priebus’s statement by pointing out that “in terms of dollars, Obama has added more debt (based on either total national debt or debt held by the public) than any of his predecessors.” Citing the U.S. Treasury “debt to the penny” Web site, Spicer noted that the gross national debt, which includes bonds held by Social Security and the other government trust funds, stood at $10.627 trillion on Jan. 20 and reached $17.994 trillion on Dec. 3 — an increase of about 70 percent. In terms of debt held by the public, the number has doubled from $6.307 trillion to $12.932 trillion in the same period.

Case closed? Nope. The biggest problem with this kind of calculation is that every president inherits a debt from the previous one, making it virtually certain that the pile of debt is going to grow. So raw numbers don’t tell you much; what’s important is the percentage change in the time period being measured.

So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office: $1 trillion
Size after six years: $2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama. But even he was a piker compared with wartime presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

As Roosevelt battled the Great Depression and World War II, the debt soared from $23 billion in 1933 to $266 billion in 1945, or more than a 1,000 percent increase. Wilson, meanwhile, boosted the national debt from $3 billion in 1913 to $24 billion in 1921, for an increase of more than 700 percent. In fact, it was during Wilson’s presidency — and World War I – that the national debt limit was first established.

Spicer noted that when Obama was a candidate in 2008, he attacked George W. Bush using the same sort of raw-dollar accounting, declaring that adding $4 trillion to the national debt was“irresponsible and “unpatriotic.”

 

[Windship]

“The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents. Number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”​

​

But as we often say, two wrongs don’t make a right. Obama would have been liable for some Pinocchios if this language had come to The Fact Checker’s attention in 2008.
There are other ways one can try to measure a president’s effect on the debt, which we have explored in the past. Debt as a share of gross domestic product, for instance, is very useful for examining whether the nation is able to pay for the debt over time.
But measuring percentage changes in the debt/GDP ratio over time can be misleading because the GDP number is affected by the state of the economy, especially if the president suffers through a recession at the start of their term. Most recent presidents experienced robust annual GDP growth rates, compared with the flat line of Obama’s first years, which means the numerator in their calculation of GDP percentage grew much faster than the one used for Obama.
One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014 (updated to Dec. 15, 2015), and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)
NOTE: In 2016, a sharp-eyed reader spotted an error in the chart below, in that we had mistakenly used an inflation-adjusted GDP figures, rather than nominal GDP. The mistake mainly reduced the percentages for Reagan and George H.W. Bush. We have corrected the numbers and also updated the figures for Obama through Dec. 15, 2015.

Debt increase* End-of-term GDP* Percentage​

​

Reagan $1,873 $5,413 34%
GHW Bush 1,484 $6,492 29%
Clinton 1,268 $10,472 12%
GW Bush 4,899 $14,549 34%
Obama 8,296 $18,164 46%
(*in billions)
The Pinocchio Test

Raw numbers, lacking context and not adjusted for inflation or the size of the economy, are inherently misleading. While there are ways to look at the increase in debt over time that might bolster Priebus’s point, that is not how he chose to defend it. Instead, he was relying on raw dollar figures, which really do not tell you much. And just because Obama used this method in a campaign setting, that’s not an excuse for Republicans to use it, too.
Thus Priebus’s statement has elements of fact but lacks important context. He earns Two Pinocchios.

 

[hjmick]

Is Reagan running again?

 

[Windship]

The first graph is the exchange in wealth that reagan caused....the poor got poorer.

 

[bripat9643]

The first graph is the exchange in wealth that reagan caused....the poor got poorer.

What is the quantity on the Y-axis? There's no such quantity as "exchange of wealth."

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The first graph is the exchange in wealth that reagan caused....the poor got poorer.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

reagan, the actor, was onl

y good for the wealthy...shocking!!

The Reagan apologists go into meltdown mode when they hear this.they cant stand to hear the truth they have been brainwashed their whole lives that their hero was a traiter to the poor and middle class familys. Better hope you dont come across a poster named crusader frank.He is the worst,he takes it so personal when the facts of reagan are exposed how he betrayed the lower and middle class familys and what a mass murderer he was,he goes into complete meltdown mode over it.

whats really funny for the people that hate Obama and say he has ruined the economy-which is true-he has continued what Bush got started.They ignore that in his inagural address speech he gace,he said he wanted to set the course for the future like ronald reagan.he has done JUST THAT following the footsteps that Reagan got started in the destruction of america and the betrayal of the lower and middle class familys.

The Reagannut worshippers never can accept pesky facts either that he created a national deby worse than all previous presidents COMBINED,yet somehow incredibly,he is still regarded today as one of the greatest presidents ever and somehow carter was so horrible always billed as the worst ever. the sheep are so gullible to what the propaganda LAMESTREAM media tells them its pathetic.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Does Obama have the ‘worst’ record of any president on the national debt?




By Glenn Kessler December 8, 2014
during a speech. As we have frequently pointed out, context is important when talking about “worst” records, especially with regard to a subject such as the national debt, which can span decades, even centuries.

It’s also important to remember that it’s a bit silly to attribute all of the increases — or decreases — in the national debt to a president’s policies. It’s not as if everything magically changes the moment a president takes the oath of office; in Obama’s case, he inherited a recession that sent government revenue plunging in the first months of his presidency. Bill Clinton frequently brags about creating a budget surplus, but that was partly a result of the gusher of revenue that accompanied the technology boom in the mid-1990s.

Time for a refresher course!

The Facts
Sean Spicer, the RNC’s communication director, defended Priebus’s statement by pointing out that “in terms of dollars, Obama has added more debt (based on either total national debt or debt held by the public) than any of his predecessors.” Citing the U.S. Treasury “debt to the penny” Web site, Spicer noted that the gross national debt, which includes bonds held by Social Security and the other government trust funds, stood at $10.627 trillion on Jan. 20 and reached $17.994 trillion on Dec. 3 — an increase of about 70 percent. In terms of debt held by the public, the number has doubled from $6.307 trillion to $12.932 trillion in the same period.

Case closed? Nope. The biggest problem with this kind of calculation is that every president inherits a debt from the previous one, making it virtually certain that the pile of debt is going to grow. So raw numbers don’t tell you much; what’s important is the percentage change in the time period being measured.

So under Obama, the debt has increased 70 percent after nearly six years. But let’s look at what happened under Republican hero Ronald Reagan, using the fiscal year numbers in the White House’s historical budget tables.

Size of national debt when Reagan took office: $1 trillion
Size after six years: $2.3 trillion (130 percent increase)
Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)

In other words, when the numbers are placed in context, the national debt grew faster under Reagan than it has under Obama. But even he was a piker compared with wartime presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

As Roosevelt battled the Great Depression and World War II, the debt soared from $23 billion in 1933 to $266 billion in 1945, or more than a 1,000 percent increase. Wilson, meanwhile, boosted the national debt from $3 billion in 1913 to $24 billion in 1921, for an increase of more than 700 percent. In fact, it was during Wilson’s presidency — and World War I – that the national debt limit was first established.

Spicer noted that when Obama was a candidate in 2008, he attacked George W. Bush using the same sort of raw-dollar accounting, declaring that adding $4 trillion to the national debt was“irresponsible and “unpatriotic.”

Kinda debunks the myth that the sheep have fallen for over the years that FDR was a great president for the american people as well. FDR and Reagan get billed as being in the top five greatest presidents ever but the REAL FACTS prove they were traiters to the american lower and middle class familys and mass murdering criminals.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What the hell does Reagan have to do with anything? Shit, the man's been dead for years.

Let it go.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[norwegen]

Is Reagan running again?

He's Obama's excuse for doubling the national debt.

 

[norwegen]

Why is all this on Reagan? why not the Congress?

Oh, yea. Because it mostly Democrat.