Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Is their word gospel on this issue? IOW, it's okay for Obama to do it because somebody else did it in a smaller way first?
'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Is their word gospel on this issue? IOW, it's okay for Obama to do it because somebody else did it in a smaller way first?
You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over it.Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.Percentages are the Rational, meaning Logical, also in this case meaning Fair way to make Valid comparisons, not something the little Partisans want to do..Using this "logic" the next president will be even better. Even as we go bankrupt.
Mark
No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.
If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:
Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.
So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.
The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.
Do you agree with this set of figures as well?
Mark
And keep this in mind:
$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.
Have fun...
No, it won't change the math. But, since the math is set up to make a lie look reasonable, it can be done by anyone, just like the example I gave to you.
And now, you want me to adjust for inflation? Why? My lie is just as valid as yours is. I cannot make a lie the truth by adjusting it.
'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Is their word gospel on this issue? IOW, it's okay for Obama to do it because somebody else did it in a smaller way first?
Ha, Communist fuckwits are Big Dick-Worshippers now. Hilariously dumb hypocrites.
You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over it.Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.Percentages are the Rational, meaning Logical, also in this case meaning Fair way to make Valid comparisons, not something the little Partisans want to do..
No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.
If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:
Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.
So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.
The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.
Do you agree with this set of figures as well?
Mark
And keep this in mind:
$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.
Have fun...
No, it won't change the math. But, since the math is set up to make a lie look reasonable, it can be done by anyone, just like the example I gave to you.
And now, you want me to adjust for inflation? Why? My lie is just as valid as yours is. I cannot make a lie the truth by adjusting it.
I already made the math "work". As I proved to you in my example. I never denied that Reagan was a big spender. I will simply state that using percentage with a sliding basis means...less than nothing.
I have a strong math background. It appears that most here do not.
I have already "proven" to you that Obama has outspent Reagan by over 200%. If my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.
Mark
Jesus, I give. Present him with numbers and he lies anyway.I know that math is "Fuzzy" to the Right, but I only allotted $375 billion/year in interest to the GOP, the balance of the $400+ billion/year in interest to Obama.Sorry, not the way it works. If you want to go that route, then paying veterans benefits to WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets should all be allocated the the presidents in power at the time of these conflicts.
I also like how you allocated the entire interest on the debt to the GOP.
Mark
No, the math isn't "fuzzy" to the right. It is simply wrong. Numbers don't lie.
Mark
lie ?
http://www.skymachines.com/us-national-debt-per-capita-percent-of-gdp-and-by-presidental-term.htm
Yes, lie. Your link doesn't mean anything.
You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over it.Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.
If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:
Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.
So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.
The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.
Do you agree with this set of figures as well?
Mark
And keep this in mind:
$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.
Have fun...
No, it won't change the math. But, since the math is set up to make a lie look reasonable, it can be done by anyone, just like the example I gave to you.
And now, you want me to adjust for inflation? Why? My lie is just as valid as yours is. I cannot make a lie the truth by adjusting it.
I already made the math "work". As I proved to you in my example. I never denied that Reagan was a big spender. I will simply state that using percentage with a sliding basis means...less than nothing.
I have a strong math background. It appears that most here do not.
I have already "proven" to you that Obama has outspent Reagan by over 200%. If my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.
Mark
lie.
next liar please.
'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Is their word gospel on this issue? IOW, it's okay for Obama to do it because somebody else did it in a smaller way first?
Ha, Communist fuckwits are Big Dick-Worshippers now. Hilariously dumb hypocrites.
I said you could be first. Do you want a trophy too ?
ok, deal. Trophy too.
Jesus, I give. Present him with numbers and he lies anyway.I know that math is "Fuzzy" to the Right, but I only allotted $375 billion/year in interest to the GOP, the balance of the $400+ billion/year in interest to Obama.
No, the math isn't "fuzzy" to the right. It is simply wrong. Numbers don't lie.
Mark
lie ?
http://www.skymachines.com/us-national-debt-per-capita-percent-of-gdp-and-by-presidental-term.htm
Yes, lie. Your link doesn't mean anything.
The numbers don't prove the claim. They are simply numbers. Using them to try to prove the OP is a lie. I have already given two examples in this thread about how to manipulate percentages to spread deceit.
Either learn from them or not, your choice.
Mark
Jesus, I give. Present him with numbers and he lies anyway.No, the math isn't "fuzzy" to the right. It is simply wrong. Numbers don't lie.
Mark
lie ?
http://www.skymachines.com/us-national-debt-per-capita-percent-of-gdp-and-by-presidental-term.htm
Yes, lie. Your link doesn't mean anything.
The numbers don't prove the claim. They are simply numbers. Using them to try to prove the OP is a lie. I have already given two examples in this thread about how to manipulate percentages to spread deceit.
Either learn from them or not, your choice.
Mark
lie.
nothing you can say or do will ever change my mind either.. you're a liar.
next.
Actually, it has to do with credibility. For Reagan and Bush I, those 2 quotes applied, but when Clinton was elected deficits were the end of the world. Once Bush II was elected deficits didn't matter any more until Obama was elected when suddenly deficits are the doom of the American way of life as founded. So we expect that as soon as another Republican is elected deficits will no longer matter until the next Dem is elected.'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Is their word gospel on this issue? IOW, it's okay for Obama to do it because somebody else did it in a smaller way first?
Actually, it has to do with credibility. For Reagan and Bush I, those 2 quotes applied, but when Clinton was elected deficits were the end of the world. Once Bush II was elected deficits didn't matter any more until Obama was elected when suddenly deficits are the doom of the American way of life as founded. So we expect that as soon as another Republican is elected deficits will no longer matter until the next Dem is elected.'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.''Greed is good.' 'Massive Debt is good.'
So the President and Democrat fuckwits keep telling us anyway. Go figure?
Ronald Reagan
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Is their word gospel on this issue? IOW, it's okay for Obama to do it because somebody else did it in a smaller way first?
Get it?
Jesus, I give. Present him with numbers and he lies anyway.
Yes, lie. Your link doesn't mean anything.
The numbers don't prove the claim. They are simply numbers. Using them to try to prove the OP is a lie. I have already given two examples in this thread about how to manipulate percentages to spread deceit.
Either learn from them or not, your choice.
Mark
lie.
nothing you can say or do will ever change my mind either.. you're a liar.
next.
I don't want you to believe me. I want you to believe the math. Math doesn't lie. People that use math deceptively do.
Mark
Jesus, I give. Present him with numbers and he lies anyway.Yes, lie. Your link doesn't mean anything.
The numbers don't prove the claim. They are simply numbers. Using them to try to prove the OP is a lie. I have already given two examples in this thread about how to manipulate percentages to spread deceit.
Either learn from them or not, your choice.
Mark
lie.
nothing you can say or do will ever change my mind either.. you're a liar.
next.
I don't want you to believe me. I want you to believe the math. Math doesn't lie. People that use math deceptively do.
Mark
nope, extrapolate until you're purple. I'll never believe you or your math.
Yes, it's wrong. Because you are using today's dollars, not adjusted for inflation and not used against any baseline, like GDP, which you believe to be more valid and I'm fine with. Here's how you might do it.You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over it.Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.Percentages are the Rational, meaning Logical, also in this case meaning Fair way to make Valid comparisons, not something the little Partisans want to do..
No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.
If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:
Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.
So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.
The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.
Do you agree with this set of figures as well?
Mark
And keep this in mind:
$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.
Have fun...
No, it won't change the math. But, since the math is set up to make a lie look reasonable, it can be done by anyone, just like the example I gave to you.
And now, you want me to adjust for inflation? Why? My lie is just as valid as yours is. I cannot make a lie the truth by adjusting it.
I already made the math "work". As I proved to you in my example. I never denied that Reagan was a big spender. I will simply state that using percentage with a sliding basis means...less than nothing.
I have a strong math background. It appears that most here do not.
I have already "proven" to you that Obama has outspent Reagan by over 200%. If my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.
Mark
Yes, it's wrong. Because you are using today's dollars, not adjusted for inflation and not used against any baseline, like GDP, which you believe to be more valid and I'm fine with. Here's how you might do it.You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over it.Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.
If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:
Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.
So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.
The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.
Do you agree with this set of figures as well?
Mark
And keep this in mind:
$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.
Have fun...
No, it won't change the math. But, since the math is set up to make a lie look reasonable, it can be done by anyone, just like the example I gave to you.
And now, you want me to adjust for inflation? Why? My lie is just as valid as yours is. I cannot make a lie the truth by adjusting it.
I already made the math "work". As I proved to you in my example. I never denied that Reagan was a big spender. I will simply state that using percentage with a sliding basis means...less than nothing.
I have a strong math background. It appears that most here do not.
I have already "proven" to you that Obama has outspent Reagan by over 200%. If my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.
Mark
Reagan's debt, adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars: 3.33 trillion
Obama's debt, in 2014 dollars: 8 trillion.
he presi
Now run those against GDP.
Reagan GDP, adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars was 10.6 trillion
Obama GDP, in 2014 dollars was 16.7 trillion.
So, is there a problem here? You bet your ass there is, but as a percentage is Obama the big spender? Nope, Reagan is. And Clinton wipes the floor with both of them.
No, what it shows is as bad as it is, Obama is not a big spender, period. 186% versus %70 is a big difference, even if the times make that about as useful as tits on a board.Yes, it's wrong. Because you are using today's dollars, not adjusted for inflation and not used against any baseline, like GDP, which you believe to be more valid and I'm fine with. Here's how you might do it.You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over it.Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.
And keep this in mind:
$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.
Have fun...
No, it won't change the math. But, since the math is set up to make a lie look reasonable, it can be done by anyone, just like the example I gave to you.
And now, you want me to adjust for inflation? Why? My lie is just as valid as yours is. I cannot make a lie the truth by adjusting it.
I already made the math "work". As I proved to you in my example. I never denied that Reagan was a big spender. I will simply state that using percentage with a sliding basis means...less than nothing.
I have a strong math background. It appears that most here do not.
I have already "proven" to you that Obama has outspent Reagan by over 200%. If my math is wrong I invite you to correct it.
Mark
Reagan's debt, adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars: 3.33 trillion
Obama's debt, in 2014 dollars: 8 trillion.
he presi
Now run those against GDP.
Reagan GDP, adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars was 10.6 trillion
Obama GDP, in 2014 dollars was 16.7 trillion.
So, is there a problem here? You bet your ass there is, but as a percentage is Obama the big spender? Nope, Reagan is. And Clinton wipes the floor with both of them.
Like I said, any question can be structured to make anyone look bad. This "percentage" example trying to make Obama look better than Reagan is ludicrous.
Thats my point. We can look at your example as a good one because we are comparing apples to apples. Using percentage on a sliding scale is...stupid.
Mark
No other president got stimulus.And they they should add the 1 trillion a year in FED stimulus that no other President got... That would be a fun 5 trill or so to add, but hey, like Bush's war Obama will keep the stimulus off budget, and you're good with that because....
Seriously, if you counted the stimulus Obama is the worst person in history when it comes to a economy and debt. Just pretend any other President, Dem or Rep could minus 5ish trillion from their "deficit spending."
Obama gets the tax revenue that never ending stimulus created, but not the debt, Hmmmm, just lucky i guess.
