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

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

What Obama looks is screwed, and he is. Reagan looks bad and people loved him for it. American politics isn't rational, and most Americans are as dumb as dogshit.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

What Obama looks is screwed, and he is. Reagan looks bad and people loved him for it. American politics isn't rational, and most Americans are as dumb as dogshit.

If you think Obama is screwed, wait until the next president, be it Democrat or Republican. Our built in entitlements are gonna make Obama look like a skin flint in comparison.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

What Obama looks is screwed, and he is. Reagan looks bad and people loved him for it. American politics isn't rational, and most Americans are as dumb as dogshit.

If you think Obama is screwed, wait until the next president, be it Democrat or Republican. Our built in entitlements are gonna make Obama look like a skin flint in comparison.

Among other things, yep.

 

[bendog]

Reagan looked good because inflation was killed by Volker (Jimmah) and Greenspan, and the economy rebounded. And, there was not the huge deleveraging from an imploded real estate bubble that affected China, the EU, Japan and the US.

The amount of revenue needed to fund soc sec for the next 30 years is not really that much, if viewed against the total economy. But, there is a lack of political will to achieve the compromises necessary, and Reagan didn't face that either.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

And the wall stood for the entire Reagan reign!

 

[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.

And the wall stood for the entire Reagan reign!

Did you cry when Reagan collapsed your Empire?

 

[deltex1]

70% of accumulated under the MinC. What did he spend it on? Getting re-elected. Bribing the poor and minorities. Funding clean energy. Buying off enemies instead of killing them. Gay wedding cakes. Free mediacal care for visiting ******* with ebola. Benefits for illegals.


Chart from U.S. Department of Treasury Shows Alarming Milestone the National Debt Just Passed TheBlaze.com

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.

When did I ever say anything about Bush?

You see, math defies your Marxist scripted lie! When the national debt continues to increase there is no surplus, plain and simple.

 

[Darkwind]

Keep in mind, of course, that we are currently paying $5,500 per family of four, every year, just to pay interest on that debt.

That's $5,500 that you could have spent on better food for your family, rebuilding the porch that's falling apart, repairing your car or even buying a new one ever three years or so, etc. But you couldn't do those things, because you had to send it to the government to pay the interest on that massive debt.

And you'll have to send more next year. And even more the next. Unless the government stops its huge borrowing.

Next time a big-government pusher tries to tell you we don't need to pay off the National Debt, and more borrowing is perfectly fine, Think about what you could have done with that money if he hadn't taken it from you.

And if you didn't pay that much in taxes last year, that's because somebody else paid that much to pay his share in the interest, AND paid your share too. What did he do to deserve being burdened by his share AND yours?

Just think about the number of young people who could nearly finance their entire college education with that 5.5k dollars.

 

[deltex1]

Off the topic...but it looks like the EPA is Obabbles next scandal. One million in paid administrative leave.

Fox News.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many threads on this so far? At least 5.

That's why we call it an echo chamber.

 

[Siete]

merge threads ... help the idiots, please Mods.

TYVM

 

[deltex1]

There should be some trigger to notify us that key words have already appeared in a previous thread title. Maybe Delta4 and PMS can get together and come up with an algorithm...

 

[LoneLaugher]

There should be some trigger to notify us that key words have already appeared in a previous thread title. Make be Delta4 and PMS can get together and come up with an algorithm...

No. Just assume that one of your pals has already posted today's Drudge or Brietbart headline.

Several threads......and not one of them made an attempt to be honest. Fucking losers......boring losers.

 

[Siete]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.

When did I ever say anything about Bush?

You see, math defies your Marxist scripted lie! When the national debt continues to increase there is no surplus, plain and simple.

debt ... deficit ... confusing isn't it ?

 

[The Rabbi]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.

When did I ever say anything about Bush?

You see, math defies your Marxist scripted lie! When the national debt continues to increase there is no surplus, plain and simple.

debt ... deficit ... confusing isn't it ?

Apparently beyond your comprehension.

 

[deltex1]

There should be some trigger to notify us that key words have already appeared in a previous thread title. Make be Delta4 and PMS can get together and come up with an algorithm...

No. Just assume that one of your pals has already posted today's Drudge or Brietbart headline.

Several threads......and not one of them made an attempt to be honest. Fucking losers......boring losers.

Lmffao.

 

[Siete]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.

When did I ever say anything about Bush?

You see, math defies your Marxist scripted lie! When the national debt continues to increase there is no surplus, plain and simple.

debt ... deficit ... confusing isn't it ?

Apparently beyond your comprehension.

national debt, federal deficit are exactly the same... for idiots like you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.

When did I ever say anything about Bush?

You see, math defies your Marxist scripted lie! When the national debt continues to increase there is no surplus, plain and simple.

debt ... deficit ... confusing isn't it ?

I'm sure a dictionary can help you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.

When did I ever say anything about Bush?

You see, math defies your Marxist scripted lie! When the national debt continues to increase there is no surplus, plain and simple.

debt ... deficit ... confusing isn't it ?

Apparently beyond your comprehension.

national debt, federal deficit are exactly the same... for idiots like you.

Ummm no, it's looking like you're the only who has said that.