Total US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see.
3 Trillions from the Bush Tax Cuts.
3 Trillion at least rebuilding Iraq
1 trillion from Medicare part D
The unknown trillions from a fucked up economy through GOP deregulation
Unknown trillions from the cost of the tens of thousands of young Americans Republicans tricked into going to Iraq and ending up maimed.
The trillions lost with millions of jobs moving to China from 2001 to 2008.
Trillions lost from the more than 40,000 factories closed from 2001 to 2008.

I guess the fault is Obama's, and that was what happened before he was even sworn in.

Dean, you're a fucking moron and a liar and not necessarily in that order

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Starkey posting from "Office of the Democrat Leader"

Priceless!

 

[80zephyr]

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.

You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over 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.

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, 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.

So, let me take a crack at your numbers.

3.33 trillion of a GDP of 10.6 trillion is 31% of GDP for Reagan. Obama's is 8 trillion of a 16.7 trillion GDP for a rate of spending of almost 48% of GDP.

Want to try that again?

Mark

 

[bendog]

For the faux conservatives, the problem started in 2008. Obama just said he'd rather chance not addressing the problem in 2015 than to give up the latino leg of his coalition.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Starkey posting from "Office of the Democrat Leader"

Priceless!

You were dead wrong when you first thought that and you still are now. Give the Mods a little credit, they know what an IP address is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can't make the math work out let alone your lies, so pass on both. Reagan was a Big Spender, get over 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.

Reagan's debt, adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars: 3.33 trillion
Obama's debt, in 2014 dollars: 8 trillion.

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, 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.

So, let me take a crack at your numbers.

3.33 trillion of a GDP of 10.6 trillion is 31% of GDP for Reagan. Obama's is 8 trillion of a 16.7 trillion GDP for a rate of spending of almost 48% of GDP.

Want to try that again?

Nope, that's looks perfectly valid and I have no issues with it, besides we really do have a slight debt problem here. We are hardly alone but it would sure be nice to run some Clinton and not Reagan or Obama numbers again eh? Clear now?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Starkey posting from "Office of the Democrat Leader"

Priceless!

You were dead wrong when you first thought that and you still are now. Give the Mods a little credit, they know what an IP address is.

Sure, Jake.

Like it's impossible to mask an IP Address

Meanwhile one single Obama deficit was bigger than all 8 of Reagan's and one single Obama deficit was bigger than entire Reagan budgets

 

[Roadrunner]

.

As we have climbed this $18T mountain, one constant has remained:

Professional congressional politicians who are unrestrained by either a Balanced Budget Amendment or term limits.

We did this to ourselves.

.

I agree, but term limits are sop to lazy voters, and in places where they have been tried, just create more professional politicians on cushy salaries and retirements.

The solution is educated voters, but dems will make sure public schools will not provide them.

 

[Siete]

nope, don't believe it.


(adopting the RW "nothing matters if I don't believe it" attitude)

lol

 

[WelfareQueen]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

FDR added over a 1000 percent to the national debt. Why didn't you include that?

Ask the person who made the chart? List them all if you like, it won't change anything or make Obama look bad, and it wouldn't matter if it did, it is what it is.

O has already spent more than every president. That doesn't help your chart.

What did he spend it on? GOP fuckups?

Nope....Obama owns the fucked up Stimulus.....Obamacare....and the explosion of the Food Stamp Program.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Starkey posting from "Office of the Democrat Leader"

Priceless!

You were dead wrong when you first thought that and you still are now. Give the Mods a little credit, they know what an IP address is.

Sure, Jake.

Like it's impossible to mask an IP Address

No one would bother to do that for this site. If you think you have something then take it to the Mods, but you don't so give it a rest.

 

[Siete]

Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Starkey posting from "Office of the Democrat Leader"

Priceless!

You were dead wrong when you first thought that and you still are now. Give the Mods a little credit, they know what an IP address is.

Sure, Jake.

Like it's impossible to mask an IP Address

No one would bother to do that for this site. If you think you have something then take it to the Mods, but you don't so give it a rest.

Wink, wink.

Ok, Jake

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989

The Biggest problem was he kicked your hometeams ass and ended the USSR

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989

The Biggest problem was he kicked your hometeams ass and ended the USSR

That's they myth alright.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Starkey posting from "Office of the Democrat Leader"

Priceless!

You were dead wrong when you first thought that and you still are now. Give the Mods a little credit, they know what an IP address is.

Sure, Jake.

Like it's impossible to mask an IP Address

No one would bother to do that for this site. If you think you have something then take it to the Mods, but you don't so give it a rest.

Wink, wink.

Ok, Jake

You really are a box of rocks little friend. And hey look at that, both of us are posting now after hours of it being just me. What a moron you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989

The Biggest problem was he kicked your hometeams ass and ended the USSR

That's they myth alright.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Reagan's debt, adjusted for inflation in 2014 dollars: 3.33 trillion
Obama's debt, in 2014 dollars: 8 trillion.

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, 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.

So, let me take a crack at your numbers.

3.33 trillion of a GDP of 10.6 trillion is 31% of GDP for Reagan. Obama's is 8 trillion of a 16.7 trillion GDP for a rate of spending of almost 48% of GDP.

Want to try that again?

Nope, that's looks perfectly valid and I have no issues with it, besides we really do have a slight debt problem here. We are hardly alone but it would sure be nice to run some Clinton and not Reagan or Obama numbers again eh? Clear now?

We can talk Clinton, but, there were a number of things that happened during his term where he got extremely lucky. Those would have to be taken into consideration as well.

But, back to my main point. I took your numbers and I made Obama look bad. Numbers, taken out of context(like the percentage chart) mean nothing.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989

The Biggest problem was he kicked your hometeams ass and ended the USSR

That's they myth alright.

Yep, myth. But you love your Reagan hero myth, until it's pointed out what he actually did, including arming sworn enemies of the US.

 

[Siete]

tear down that wall !

Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989

The Biggest problem was he kicked your hometeams ass and ended the USSR

(after the wall had already started to be torn down)