Debt

[driveshaftgrunt]

www.presidentialdebt.org/


Note also that growth in federal spending is significantly lower under this administration than any of the since Eisenhower.

Simpson Bowles was a start, and there was a deal in place, but Cantor blew it up with a refusal to raise any taxes.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

There’s a saying attributed to Winston Churchill that goes something like this: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Figures Don't Lie: Democrats Do


...same old chart, same bull shit!
....we already went through this shit...

…its not data, its’s the way Democrats uses MATH to influence ingnorance…its sometime its whats left out of the equation thats the problem.
…first of all, I hate posting charts, most of them are unreliable, but since you guys like to post these charts and call them data…..I have to find time to comment on at least one….I would love to do all, but I just don’t have the time……
I’ll just pick one and start with your first one you posted…since you like to link it because I have seen it before in here…and as always I lose a couple of I.Q. points every time I see one

www.skymachines.com/US-National-D....dental-Term.htm

Years Office % debt increase

12/31/1981 REAGAN $1,028,729,000,000
12/31/1988 REAGAN $2,684,392,000,000 }----189%

12/31/1989 BUSH $2,952,994,000,000
12/31/1992 BUSH $4,177,009,000,000 }----55.6%

12/31/1993 CLINTON $4,535,687,054,406
12/31/2000 CLINTON $5,662,216,013,697 }----36%

12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436
12/31/2008 BUSH $10,699,804,864,612 }--89%

12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512
12/31/2011 OBAMA $15,125,898,976,397 }---41%

..The Democrats Math: for instance.. as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller. Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, that’s only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same.

…so let me try to explain in a 5th grade sort of way so you guys can understand these charts..

Jobs1stb4polarbear is President and starts with $10 in debt and adds $10 more to the debt, he has just increased the debt 100%

$10 to $20 = 100% increase in debt

Driveshaftgrunt becomes the next president and starts at $20, because that’s the debt that president jobs1 left him…..he adds $10 more to the debt, he has just increased the debt by 50%...even though he increased the debt the same amount as president Jobs1st..

$20 to 30 = 50% increase in debt

......Etc...etc....

I can play with % numbers also and make Obama look bad...

How much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP:

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points

GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points

Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points

GW Bush: plus 5.6 11.6 percentage points

Obama: plus 24.6 19.7 percentage points

I have crunched the number for my anally retentive friend...…..the numbers for calendar years and shows that….. in the transition from Bush to Obama, adjusting the dates makes a difference in the result. My math shows that a more accurate figure would be plus 11.6 percentage points for Bush and plus 19.7 percentage points for Obama. The shift doesn’t change the overall result but divides up the responsibility for the debt more accurately. Again these number will change every time you post this stupid chart.
One can offer reasons for why Obama’s performance appears so poor, including the fact that he is battling a recession……. An improvement in the nation’s economy would boost the gross domestic product, which would certainly begin to reduce his ratio. But the fact remains that under basic economic measures, not phony ones, his record on the growth of the national debt is the worst of recent presidents. This chart pins all of the growth of the debt on individual presidents. In reality, many factors, including the economy, wars and congressional actions, contribute to the rise of the debt.)


Read more: scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=election&thread=11854&page=1#ixzz24lFdQapQ

[driveshaftgrunt]

Dude, its data, raw data.

No comment was made.


bea.gov

Raw data.

And you're not factoring in a recession that was unrivalled in American history since the depression. BOTH in terms of a drop in GDP, and the duration.


The debt increased during the recession, while GDP dropped almost 9% in one quarter. Hence, a massive growth in debt to GDP ratio.


Compare the figures with a visual of the recession expressed by quarter and GDP.

And I believe it was Twain, not Churchill.

Serious question, did you even take economics?

And its 14% for Obama, not 24. (100-86=14) Your math is worse than your grasp of macroeconomics and ability to attribute quotes.

[jobs1stb4polarbear]

Did you go all anal on me? really? math errors, quotes, wtf! You missed the point!

Figures don't lie...which means your chart does not lie...
Democrats who love to use charts do...

...intead of deomcrats using ($) numbers they use (%)numbers....whatever makes their guy in office look good....
...beleave me, if it was a republican in office, you would be using the dollar $ amount.

...but I can play the numbers game also if you like...using your chart:

8 years of President Bush went from start $5,662,216,013,697+$10,699,804,864,612=($5,000,000,000,000 added to debt in 8 years in office)

First 3 1/2 years of President Obama went from $10,699,804,864,612+$15,856,367,214,324=(OVER 5,000,000,000,000 added in just 3 ½ years in ofiice)

…now at the risk of you going anal on me again, I don’t have time to add them for Mr. pulitzer prize winning economist(driveshaft)..….last thing I want is to make another mathematical error for you.
…..and because I still have the old chart, I will correct them from that one, just for you…..just to make you happy! Why the old chart? You may ask, because I copied and pasted something I had posted back in April, when your favorite chart got posted….the numbers have changed sinced then…..this chart ends June 30 2012
….and next month the numbers will change again on your chart…
……and as always, I don’t have time to fuck with this one
…fuck, I hate autocorrect on my cell
….but I will still crunch the numbers and correct any mistakes to make you happy

oh almost forgot...
....let me try to be a little anal driveshaft:

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes," wrote Mark Twain

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on," Winston Chirchill

"A lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on." C. H. Spurgeon (19 C)

....and you need to learn the difference between Attributed and Sourced.

[driveshaftgrunt]

Its not my "favorite" chart.

Its the best one page collection of raw data I could find.

I'm not a Democrat, and I've voted for Republican candidates before, though I currently think the GOP has gone BatShitCrazy.

Stating GDP isn't a "Democratic Lie". Nor is presenting what is basically an academic chart of economic data. Unless you're paranoid.


And you didn't answer my question about economics, nor did I expect you to.


You should not start what is essentially an academic argument, and use the word "anal", unless you're a sex therapist.

I'm not expressing any love for the current president, just attempting to correct the flawed notion that he is anything worse than the any other president regarding the debt.

Look, everybody wants the deficit reduced, but NOBODY wants to pay the price to do it. There is a tremendous political cost to getting the budget in line, and that's why it hasn't happened. You can't touch SocSec or Medicare, you can't cut defense, you can't raise taxes etc. etc.

The most revealing part of this is that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY want the the deficit trimmed,and the debt reduced. But NOTHING polls anywhere near 50% when you ask them what to cut. We as Americans want a ton of shit, we just don't want to pay for it. I'd personally start with the $15-20 billion a year we spend to protect Korea, but that' just me.


That's why Simpson-Bowles was so attractive to me, because it had something in it for everybody to hate.

As far as the current #'s vrs. % argument, I'll offer this.

---There are three main contributors to the recent deficits if you use 2000-2001 as a baseline, the last time we didn't run a deficit. Two are revenue related and one is spending related. The revenue items are the big tax cut, and the drop in tax revenue because of the recession. The spending item is the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is almost nothing in the way of current policy change that has contributed to the growth in debt other than those three.

---If you grow govt. spending at a consistant rate, and I've shown the growth of govt. expenditures under Obama is at a historically low rate, and tax revenue PLUMMETS because of a recession that bottomed out at 9% and an across the board tax cut, and at the same time GDP actually shrinks, then the Debt to GDP ratio blows up, at least temporarily. Look at the growth in Debt to GDP ratios during the last 4-5 recessions, and you'll see it. After the last recession technically ended, Obama's numbers are on par with historic norms, all the while spending hundreds of billions on two military operations.

---For example, look at the rates during Bush II presidency BEFORE the Great Recession. Not bad. Then look at them after the recession kicked in. They're terrible, not because of Bush, but because of the recession. Same with Obama, terrible during the worst of the recession, better the last 2 years. That's what a recession of that size and scope does. And I don't think most people appreciate just how MASSIVE this last recession was. The chief economist from the John Thomas investment firm, who's on TV all the time, has done some great work on this. I'd link it, but it has data and charts, and is thererfore a lie I suppose.


Hate the guy all you want, I don't care. But people have to actually be able to present a cogent argument, the kind that holds up to evidence, if they want to go with the big freak out.


I'll you a perfect political tidbit to show just how nutso people have gotten. Romney is on record as saying that he wouldn't make massive immediate spending cuts to lower the deficit. The reason he gave? A purely Harvard MBA, macroeconomics 101 answer: Cutting that much federal spending would lower GDP from 3-5% and put is back into a major recession. The fact that he can state this obvious fact, and almost nobody understand it, is proof of just how delusional some people can get when they don't know what they're talking about.