HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » WHO INCREASED THE DEBT?
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:12 PM

WHO INCREASED THE DEBT?



http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/partisan-deficits-by-davidoatkins.html

66 replies, 10692 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply WHO INCREASED THE DEBT? (Original post)
kpete Apr 2012 OP
crazylikafox Apr 2012 #1
jwirr Apr 2012 #16
valerief Apr 2012 #30
mopinko Apr 2012 #51
snagglepuss Apr 2012 #65
Rex Apr 2012 #2
Jamaal510 Apr 2012 #35
orpupilofnature57 Apr 2012 #3
warrior1 Apr 2012 #4
Life Long Dem Apr 2012 #5
Angry Dragon Apr 2012 #6
WHEN CRABS ROAR Apr 2012 #28
kentuck Apr 2012 #7
WHEN CRABS ROAR Apr 2012 #29
freshwest Apr 2012 #33
kentuck Apr 2012 #40
FourScore Apr 2012 #8
kentuck Apr 2012 #9
Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2012 #12
kentuck Apr 2012 #14
Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2012 #15
freshwest Apr 2012 #34
kentuck Apr 2012 #39
freshwest Apr 2012 #44
kentuck Apr 2012 #46
underpants Apr 2012 #11
Alexander Apr 2012 #13
Drunken Irishman Apr 2012 #38
cantbeserious Apr 2012 #53
Odin2005 Apr 2012 #58
BootinUp Apr 2012 #10
lumberingbear Apr 2012 #17
dems_rightnow Apr 2012 #21
progressoid Apr 2012 #31
SunSeeker Apr 2012 #63
marshall gaines Apr 2012 #18
Gore1FL Apr 2012 #19
spanone Apr 2012 #20
penndragon69 Apr 2012 #22
Sherman A1 Apr 2012 #23
juajen Apr 2012 #24
Faygo Kid Apr 2012 #25
One of the 99 Apr 2012 #26
kentuck Apr 2012 #27
robinlynne Apr 2012 #32
midnight Apr 2012 #36
just1voice Apr 2012 #37
kentuck Apr 2012 #41
OnlinePoker Apr 2012 #42
4dsc Apr 2012 #43
kentuck Apr 2012 #45
double deuce Apr 2012 #47
siligut Apr 2012 #48
mikekohr Apr 2012 #49
siligut Apr 2012 #52
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #57
kentuck Apr 2012 #59
cilla4progress Apr 2012 #50
Auntie Bush Apr 2012 #54
thorolyfedup Apr 2012 #55
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #62
Thinkingabout Apr 2012 #56
kentuck Apr 2012 #60
TheFarseer Apr 2012 #61
4dsc Apr 2012 #64
Scurrilous Apr 2012 #66

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:14 PM

1. That chart ought to go on billboards all across America

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazylikafox (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 03:21 PM

16. Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazylikafox (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 09:27 PM

30. Ah, if only. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazylikafox (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:48 AM

51. ++++++++

all ya gotta do is find the ones that aren't owned by clear channel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazylikafox (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:27 AM

65. +1000000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:17 PM

2. A chart you will never see displayed on the M$M.

Foxnews* would have that chart reversed, of course, to confuse their already brain dead cult following.














*not an actual news source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:53 PM

35. You might see it on MSNBC or CurrentTV.

Maybe Rachel or Cenk will show this. But yeah, don't rely on Fox News* or even Chicken Noodle News (CNN) covering this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:18 PM

3. Their idiot icon ,and a Stu nod student ...

I bet Ronnie & Shrub lead a lot of the presidential Loser Lists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:21 PM

4. Combine Clinton and Obama

Less that Poppy bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:30 PM

5. Boehner was spending like a drunken sailor.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:33 PM

6. republicans love to spend money

as long as it is not theirs'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 07:04 PM

28. As long as they get to borrow it,

that way they can pay their big lending buddies all that interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:38 PM

7. But why did the Repubs run up the debt?

That is a question that should be asked.

And they have admitted it more than once. Reagan thought that if we could spend a lot of money and create a lot of debt, it would prevent the Democrats from having the money to create more government programs. Debt creation was a Republican brain child.

Also, Clinton's numbers would have been at a negative percent if he had not inherited Bush and Reagan's deficits...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 07:10 PM

29. Most of that money was borrowed.

Who profited the most from the interest payback?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:39 PM

33. Reagan's pals stated intention was to drive the debt to gut social programs. It worked, didn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:39 AM

40. Yes, it did.

They succeeded beyond their wildest imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:50 PM

8. All right. I'll play the the devil's advocate.

I think we can all agree that the President does not control spending. Congress does. The question is...who was in control of the House during these years? I say this because, in the past, I have proudly displayed this sort of chart while debating Republican friends and family, only to come out looking like a fool. So, a chart like this needs to be made showing who had control of the House. I hate to say it, but I bet that will be a mixed bag.

Flame away.

(Please educate me with kindness if I am wrong. I really am a loyal DU'er.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:55 PM

9. I think you make a good point but...

for many years, Congress demurred to the agenda of the new President. If he wanted more for defense spending or whatever, he would usually get it. With Reagan, I think the Democrats gave him what he wanted because they thought the voters would throw him out for his huge deficits. They didn't. They re-elected him. Clinton was able to get us out of that mess. (Repubs argue they deserve some credit also. However, they forgot how to do it once Bush was elected)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:42 PM

12. "... once Bush was [s]elected."

Fixed it for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:59 PM

14. Thanks...

for the correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 03:01 PM

15. You bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:40 PM

34. BTW, just stumbled on your journal today. Good stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:37 AM

39. Thank you very much.

I hope DU doesn't decide to delete everything...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:41 AM

44. It doesn't seem that way, but if the machines that hold that data break down, well...

And I was going to say 'great stuff,' but didn't want you to think I was 'sucking up to ya.'

Have a good weekend, what's left of it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:44 AM

46. No such thoughts.

Have a good weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

11. Repubs had the Senate from 1981 - 1987 -- both houses from 2001 - 2007

2001-2003 was 50/50 in the Senate but as we know the Dems went along with pretty much everything that the Repubs (Cheney) wanted

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 02:52 PM

13. Let's keep in mind the Obama portion only goes to 4/2011.

The Republicans only had the House for 3 months at that point. Before that, both House and Senate were solidly Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:13 AM

38. It's not that simple...

Presidents can dictate spending, though. Reagan consistently backed and supported increased military spending that led to the large increase in spending you see during his presidency. Likewise, with Pres. Bush, the increase costs of the Iraq War, his tax cuts, Afghanistan and Medicare Part D ballooned our spending. All those spending increases were pushed by Bush.

So, while Congress controls spending, it's foolish to say the President and his policies have no impact. As we saw with Reagan and then with Bush from 2001-2008, they have a great deal of control with what's spent, how much is spent and where it's spent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 12:28 PM

53. Yes, And, Who Signs The Spending Bills?

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:10 PM

58. There were still many Southern conservative Dems back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:58 PM

10. Ronnie's is bigger, I guess he was the greatest...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to lumberingbear (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 05:20 PM

21. I hated to tell them N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to progressoid (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:24 PM

63. Sigh, Politifact says the new version does not change their rating.

Per Politifact:

"So we can dispense with Clinton -- in the chart, his figure is correct. But the chart is significantly off for both Bush and Obama. We found Bush to have an 86 percent increase, not 115 percent as the chart said. And we found the debt under Obama to be up by 34 percent, more than double the 16 percent cited in the chart.

We quickly discovered the source of the discrepancy: Whoever put the chart together used the date for Jan. 20, 2010 -- which is exactly one year to the day after Obama was sworn in -- rather than his actual inauguration date. We know this because Treasury says the debt for Jan. 20, 2010, was $12.327 trillion, which is the exact number cited on the supporting document that Pelosi’s office gave us.

However this error happened, it effectively took one year of rapidly escalating debt out of Obama’s column and put it into Bush’s, significantly skewing the numbers.

Using the corrected figures does mean that, superficially at least, Democrats have a point. The debt did still increase more, on a percentage basis, under Bush than it did under Obama. But other problems with the chart and its methodology undercut even this conclusion."

...

"After we presented our research to Pelosi's office, a spokesman acknowledged that the office had erred in assembling and posting the chart and that it was in the process of reposting it. The updated version – which corrects the mathematical error but not what we consider to be the three additional design flaws – can be found here http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/5684032538/in/photostream/

That's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't change our rating since it only occurred as a result of our fact-checking. We find so much wrong with this chart that we don’t think it contains any significant approximation of the truth. It made a major calculation error that dramatically skewed the debt increase away from Obama and toward George W. Bush. It glossed over significant variations in time served in office. It cherry-picked the measurement that was favorable to its cause. And it is contradicted by statistics for GDP-adjusted debt, which show Obama to be the most, rather than the least, debt-creating president of the last five. None of this suggests that Obama can’t turn things around as the economy improves (and Democrats can also take some solace in the fact that Bill Clinton did remarkably well in all of our measurements). But in communicating which administrations contributed the most to growth of the debt, this chart is a failure. We rate it Pants on Fire."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/

Politifact as usually is a lot tougher on Dems than Repubs. But Speaker Pelosi did us not favors here. It is best to stick to the truth. And the truth is we are in this hole because of George W. Bush; none of those President on that chart had to deal with an economy that had gone off a cliff like Obama has, not to mention two major wars. And the reason our economy is not rebounding faster than it could (and hence the debt due to low revenue and high expenditures for unemployment, etc.) is because the Repubs blocked and continue to block the full stimulus all objective economists say we need. Right now, they won't even pass an infrastructure bill. If you want to see how devastating austerity measures can be in the middle of a recession, look at England right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 04:15 PM

18. sand

 

well, people with their head stuck in a gopher hole won't be able to deny this, but they'll spin it for the limbaugh clones out there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 05:16 PM

19. It would be a better graph if the baseline for the % didn't change as it progressed

It still shows Reagan and Bush 2 to be assholes, accurately in any event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 05:19 PM

20. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 06:12 PM

22. repubLIEcons can't understand this graph either.

There are too many BIG WORDS for their tiny, shriveled brains
to process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 06:23 PM

23. Great graph

thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 06:43 PM

24. Didn't Rachael Maddow bemoan Politifact's inaccuracies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 06:48 PM

25. K&R. Big time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 06:54 PM

26. National Debt Increased by 75% under Bush:

2001 - $5.871 trillion
2008 - $10.640 trillion

National Debt Increased 25% Under Obama:

Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-tr-illion
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-tr-illion

But of the $3.56-trillion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $910-billi-on = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billi-on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billi-on = TARP/Bailo-ut Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billi-on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billi-on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billi-on = Bush Meicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billi-on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

Bush's contribution:

2001 to 2008: $4.769-tri-llion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-tri-llion

Total: $7.950-trillion

Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 - $5.871 = $8.26-tril-lion

Bush's contributi-on: $7.950-tri-llion / $8.26-tril-lion = 96%

Increase caused By Bush's Programs: 96%
Increase caused by Obama's Programs: 4%
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One of the 99 (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 06:56 PM

27. However, the 1.2 trillion dollar deficit for 2009...

..was the last Bush budget, not the first Obama budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Apr 21, 2012, 11:26 PM

32. This doesn't make sense. We know that Obama's military budget is 25% higher than Bush's.

and the military, is I think, the largest expense by far. So it looks like maybe it is `16% on top of Bush's?

Then again I'm talking about spending, which is not necessarily equal to debt.

Does anyone actually know the stats? they're presented here as a percentage in increase. but the scale has 0% on the bottom.
with 0 on the bottom, the chart should consist of amounts of debt , not percenatges.....

this is a tricky/sneaky way to describe the data imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:19 AM

36. It sure is amazing how important deficit reduction becomes "only" during a Democratic administration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 01:47 AM

37. Bush borrowed more money than all 42 prior presidents combined, LINK

 

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bush-borrowed-more-all-previous-presidents-combined-group-says

"According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:42 AM

41. To keep it in perspective...

When Jimmy Carter left office, the national debt was less than $1 trillion dollars. Most of this debt has been run up since 1980. Both sides have to admit that, no matter if they disagree with who caused the debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 08:36 AM

42. I just looked on the U.S. Treasury Debt to the Minute site

Obama is now at 47%, with the debt increasing from $10.627 Trillion to $15.616 Trillion since he's been in office. Had he had the balls to not renew the Bush tax cuts, things might look different now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:35 AM

43. Everyone needs to remember how we become a debtor nation

You can blame both parties for being part of this debt raising experience but you have to remember one thing about how we got here in the first place.

And it was the republican party who took us away from the sound fiscal policy of "tax and spend" to one of BORROW AND SPEND" and that occurred during the Reagan era.

Simply put, Reaganomics fucked this country over and now we have this massive debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:42 AM

45. Also, people must understand that social programs have not increased 16-fold since 1980...

It was not spent on new social programs. The debt was acquired elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:52 AM

47. double deuce

It's not accurate.....don't want to be like the ReThugs. Gotta stick to the facts when we are arguing with the right wingers. Plenty of accurate stuff to use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to double deuce (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:58 AM

48. Then post what is accurate

And you will need to post links and resources to back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to siligut (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:25 AM

49. 10 graph's on the national debt. "STOP REPUBLICANS BEFRE THEY SPEND AGAIN!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikekohr (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 12:17 PM

52. Thank you Mike

I was calling double deuce on a blanket statement with no evidence to back it up. Your blog is very informative and you answered with abundant evidence, good work. I really like the way you pointed out why Obama/Democrats had to spend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to double deuce (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:06 PM

57. Gotta link to this "accurate stuff"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to double deuce (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:14 PM

59. Is this a fact?

That the national debt from George Washington thru Jimmy Carter was less than $1 trillion dollars? Do you know if that is true?

If so, that means we have spent almost $16 trillion dollars since Ronald Reagan took office in 1980. We have spent 16 times more than we spent from the Revolutionary War, thru the Civil War, thru the Great Depression, thru two World Wars, and thru the Great Society.

But isn't this OK because we are starving the beast? Didn't Ronald Reagan say that "government was not the solution, government is the problem" ? Doesn't that mean government is evil? Doesn't that mean that raising taxes is evil?

Which of these comments do you have a problem with??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 11:33 AM

50. Needs to go viral!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 02:14 PM

54. Perfect example of "Starve the Beast" Republican philosophy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:03 PM

55. let's see this data in a histogram

While this chart is interesting, it does not tell the whole story. In this case, percentages don't give an accurate account without also considering actual dollar amounts. For instance, an increase of 115% of a billion means 2.15 billion. However, an increase of 16% of a trillion means 1.16 trillion. Which is really the larger increase?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thorolyfedup (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 07:04 PM

62. Sounds eerily similar to the arguments presented about

tax cuts for the rich. Never mind that Rmoney is paying ~13% in taxes - look at HOW MUCH MONEY he is contributing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

56. Reagan had Dems in control and Clinton had repubs part of the time

Oh no, George W had repubs for 6 years, how did the repub Congress spend more. We have to find a way to rewrite history we can't have repubs spending. Hurry make them think anything like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:18 PM

60. But we should not overlook the fact...

....that not one Republican voted for the Clinton tax increases and deficit reduction package. By the time Newt Gingrich and the Repubs took over Congress in January of 1995, Clinton and the Democrats had already cut the huge deficit by 40%!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Apr 22, 2012, 06:58 PM

61. horrible way to measure this

The debt was nearly nothing when Reagan took over so of course he raised it by a high percentage(not to say that he did a good job) We all know Bush was very bad for the national debt. There's not much else he could have done to screw up in that category. But saying that Obama is doing a good job keeping the debt under control because it's only increased 16% is horribly misleading. Fist of all, in this graph Obama has only been in office for 2 years compared with 8 for all the others(except Bush I). Second of all, Obama has raised the debt almost $5 trillion dollars, which can't be good no matter how you slice it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Yes, Obama inherited a mess, but like so many other of the problems he inherited, he's done very little to clean it up. The only president that did anything positive for the debt in a very long time was Clinton. Sorry, I'm just tired of people making excuses for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:29 AM

64. Here's a grpah that matters



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Apr 23, 2012, 01:31 PM

66. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread