Debt growth by President

[IcebergSlim]

If anyone feels they can provide more reliable numbers than the source I'm using I'm happy to adjust what I'm posting here. I'm merely pointing out cold hard facts here boys and girls.

For the purposes of this thread Presidential terms are defined as the year in which said President assumed office. Thus, Obama's term is credited with the numbers starting in 2009. GWB's term is credited with the numbers beginning in 2001, etc. Years of Vice Presidential successions are attributed to the individual who was in office for the greater part of the year. Thus, 1963 is credited as Kennedy's last year and 1964 as Johnson's first year. The "change percent" is the percent of the starting debt that the additional debt represents. The "contribution percent" is the percentage of the total ending debt the total change represents.


Obama
Debt 2009 = $11.9 trillion
Debt 2014 = $18.0 trillion

Change dollars = $6.1 trillion
Change percent = 51.2%
Change contribution = 33.9%


George W. Bush
Debt 2008 = $10.0 trillion
Debt 2001 = $5.8 trillion

Change dollars = $4.2 trillion
Change percent = 72.4%
Change contribution = 42.0%


Bill Clinton
Debt 1993 = $4.4 trillion
Debt 2000 = $5.7 trillion

Change dollars = $1.3 trillion
Change percent = 29.5%
Change contribution = 22.8%


George Bush
Debt 1989 = $2.9 trillion
Debt 1992 = $4.1 trillion

Change dollars = $1.2 trillion
Change percent = 41.2%
Change contribution = 29.3%


Ronald Reagan
Debt 1981 = $1.0 trillion
Debt 1988 = $2.6 trillion

Change dollars = $1.6 trillion
Change percent = 160.0%
Change contribution = 61.5%


Jimmy Carter
Debt 1977 = $700 billion
Debt 1980 = $900 billion

Change dollars = $200 billion
Change percent = 28.6%
Change contribution = 22.2%


Gerald Ford
Debt 1975 = $500 billion
Debt 1976 = $600 billion

Change dollars = $100 billion
Change percent = 20.0%
Change contribution = 16.7%


Richard Nixon
Debt 1969 = $354 billion
Debt 1974 = $475 billion

Change dollars = $121 billion
Change percent = 34.2%
Change contribution = 25.5%


Lyndon Johnson
Debt 1964 = $312 billion
Debt 1968 = $348 billion

Change dollars = $36 billion
Change percent = 11.5%
Change contribution = 10.3%


John F Kennedy
Debt 1961 = $306 billion
Debt 1963 = $289 billion

Change dollars = $17 billion
Change percent = 5.9%
Change contribution = 5.6%


Dwight D. Eisenhower
Debt 1953 = $266 billion
Debt 1960 = $286 billion

Change dollars = $20 billion
Change percent = 7.5%
Change contribution = 7.0%


Harry S. Truman
Debt 1945 = $259 billion
Debt 1952 = $259 billion

Change dollars = $0
Change percent = 0%
Change contribution = 0%


Franklin Roosevelt
Debt 1933 = $23 billion
Debt 1944 = $201 billion

Change dollars = $178 billion
Change percent = 773.9%
Change contribution = 88.6%


Herbert Hoover
Debt 1932 = $19 billion
Debt 1929 = $17 billion

Change dollars = $2 billion
Change percent = 11.8%
Change contribution = 10.5%

I looked at it in 2009 dollars. All data comes from here.

Here's what the total federal public debt and percent increase looks like if the President is responsible for the fiscal year in which he is elected, i.e. Obama is responsible for all of fiscal year 2009 budget even though the fiscal year started on October 1 2008, before he was elected.

Hoover --> $80B, 45%
FDR --> $1.78T, 688%
Truman --> -$304B, -15%
Kennedy/LBJ --> -$68B, -4%
Nixon/Ford --> $114B, 6%
Carter --> $320B, 17%
Reagan --> $2.14T, 105%
Bush I --> $1.75T, 42%
Clinton --> $1.21T, 21%
Bush II --> $3.19T, 46%
Obama --> $6.47T, 64%
Obama (projected to 2016) --> $7.41T, 74%

Here's what it looks like if you average the fiscal year budgets for the calendar year in which the President is elected, i.e. Obama was inaugurated on January 20 2009, so we allocate half the increase in debt in fiscal year 2009 to Obama.

Hoover --> $108B, 62%
FDR --> $2.00T, 708%
Truman --> -$538B, -24%
Kennedy/LBJ --> -$83B, -5%
Nixon/Ford --> $217B, 12%
Carter --> $93B, 5%
Reagan --> $2.27T, 111%
Bush I --> $1.52T, 35%
Clinton --> $1.04T, 18%
Bush II --> $4.09T, 59%
Obama --> $6.10T, 56%
Obama (projected to 2016/17) --> $6.66T, 61%

By the time he leaves office, the growth of debt under Obama will be the second highest since WWII. However, debt built up faster under Reagan than it did under Obama.

Hi canada. Why don't you tell us what Reagan spent on as compared to what Obama does. Not relevant, eh canada?

You even know what the cold war was, or do you think that was all another American myth? You have any idea what the arms race was? Tell us all about it canada.

You have any clue about the space race and what was spent on that?

You fucking liberals. I am here to remind you of the epic failure of the left wing dream. The destruction of the USSR and Marxism not even lasting one hundred year. NOT EVEN ONE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS.

Yes, canada. Stats are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital. I will be waiting for to tell me about the arms race, and I will be waiting for the hippies to tell us how unnecessary a strong military or mass military spending was during the 80s.

The point is, canadian socialist, canada really benefits from our Monroe doctrine even today. I think we ought to force canada to contribute to our military.

Then again, canada does have the canadian snowbirds.



Check em out everyone. The canadian airforce. <snicker>

The "canadian airforce."

Debt grew by $2.27 trillion under Reagan. Defense spending in constant dollars was $378 billion in 1979. By the end of 1988, it had risen to $532 billion. Accumulated increased defense spending under Reagan was $867 billion, accounting for 38% of the total debt build-up under Reagan.

Had defense spending been held constant, accumulated debt under Reagan would have risen by $1.41 trillion or 68%, still the highest since WWII.

Defense Spending Since WWII United States 1975-1990 - Federal State Local Data

Hope that helps.

Don't forget that Reagan also cut taxes while escalating the cost of the Cold War, which is fiscal insanity.

Were taxes higher or lower when he left office?
Darn, that's two.

Social Security sure wasn't......

And cutting taxes is easy.....making your nut is a bit more of a challenge.....and Reagan failed miserably....

Your point being?

 

[IcebergSlim]

That chart is old. The average deficit under Obama has been 6.1%.

Annual Federal Deficit United States 1900-2016 - Federal State Local Data

people who cannot define "structural deficit" shouldn't be allowed to vote, never mind opine on this topic....

People who voted for a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER with ZERO EXPERIENCE at ANYTHING that hides his entire back ground to defraud himself into the White House illegally should all be committed to have their fucking head examined.

The only thing we've learned from Barry is that he's the most RADICAL, LIBERAL, AMERICA HATING, RACE BAITING, STEAMING PILE OF MARXIST JACKASS SHIT we've ever had the MISFORTUNE to have to LIVE THROUGH. May he ROT IN FUCKING HELL when he dies.

We could compare relevant economic metrics for him and the last guy for whom you cast 2 enthusiastic votes....

When we're done, I think you will agree with me that all those who fail to repent for having done so should have their vital organs harvested, and their issue sold into slavery.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Since Obama Took Office, the Federal Debt Has Increased by Almost 70 Percent
Michael Sargent / December 03, 2014 / 81 comments

The federal government hit a new milestone Friday: The total federal debt now tallies more than $18 trillion.

Just six years ago when President Obama took office, total debt stood at $10.6 trillion, which means it now has increased by almost $8 trillion—roughly 70 percent—during his tenure as president.

Since Obama Took Office the Federal Debt Has Increased by Almost 70 Percent

In the course of Reagan's two terms the gross debt nearly tripled....within a few years of his departure, his fiscal legacy had generated a 4 bagger....

Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budget!
Reagan's time is remembered rightly as a time of great prosperity and growth.
Obama's time is remembered as a time of stagnation and decay.

Reagan had a 16 month recession in his first term that started 6 months AFTER he took office.

Yes he did. It was teh result of the Fed raising rates to unparalleled levels to wring out the inflation caused by Reagan's predecessors. It was successful and when he left office both inflation and unemployment were much less.
Boy do you look stupid, uh?

An argument can be made that the freezes imposed by Nixon had lasting effects, but I'm hard pressed to see how that could be blamed on Reagan's immediate predecessor.....

Because you're not very well informed? Just a guess. Had you lived through that time you would know.

 

[The Rabbi]

I looked at it in 2009 dollars. All data comes from here.

Here's what the total federal public debt and percent increase looks like if the President is responsible for the fiscal year in which he is elected, i.e. Obama is responsible for all of fiscal year 2009 budget even though the fiscal year started on October 1 2008, before he was elected.

Hoover --> $80B, 45%
FDR --> $1.78T, 688%
Truman --> -$304B, -15%
Kennedy/LBJ --> -$68B, -4%
Nixon/Ford --> $114B, 6%
Carter --> $320B, 17%
Reagan --> $2.14T, 105%
Bush I --> $1.75T, 42%
Clinton --> $1.21T, 21%
Bush II --> $3.19T, 46%
Obama --> $6.47T, 64%
Obama (projected to 2016) --> $7.41T, 74%

Here's what it looks like if you average the fiscal year budgets for the calendar year in which the President is elected, i.e. Obama was inaugurated on January 20 2009, so we allocate half the increase in debt in fiscal year 2009 to Obama.

Hoover --> $108B, 62%
FDR --> $2.00T, 708%
Truman --> -$538B, -24%
Kennedy/LBJ --> -$83B, -5%
Nixon/Ford --> $217B, 12%
Carter --> $93B, 5%
Reagan --> $2.27T, 111%
Bush I --> $1.52T, 35%
Clinton --> $1.04T, 18%
Bush II --> $4.09T, 59%
Obama --> $6.10T, 56%
Obama (projected to 2016/17) --> $6.66T, 61%

By the time he leaves office, the growth of debt under Obama will be the second highest since WWII. However, debt built up faster under Reagan than it did under Obama.

Hi canada. Why don't you tell us what Reagan spent on as compared to what Obama does. Not relevant, eh canada?

You even know what the cold war was, or do you think that was all another American myth? You have any idea what the arms race was? Tell us all about it canada.

You have any clue about the space race and what was spent on that?

You fucking liberals. I am here to remind you of the epic failure of the left wing dream. The destruction of the USSR and Marxism not even lasting one hundred year. NOT EVEN ONE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS.

Yes, canada. Stats are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital. I will be waiting for to tell me about the arms race, and I will be waiting for the hippies to tell us how unnecessary a strong military or mass military spending was during the 80s.

The point is, canadian socialist, canada really benefits from our Monroe doctrine even today. I think we ought to force canada to contribute to our military.

Then again, canada does have the canadian snowbirds.



Check em out everyone. The canadian airforce. <snicker>

The "canadian airforce."

Debt grew by $2.27 trillion under Reagan. Defense spending in constant dollars was $378 billion in 1979. By the end of 1988, it had risen to $532 billion. Accumulated increased defense spending under Reagan was $867 billion, accounting for 38% of the total debt build-up under Reagan.

Had defense spending been held constant, accumulated debt under Reagan would have risen by $1.41 trillion or 68%, still the highest since WWII.

Defense Spending Since WWII United States 1975-1990 - Federal State Local Data

Hope that helps.

Don't forget that Reagan also cut taxes while escalating the cost of the Cold War, which is fiscal insanity.

Were taxes higher or lower when he left office?
Darn, that's two.

Social Security sure wasn't......

And cutting taxes is easy.....making your nut is a bit more of a challenge.....and Reagan failed miserably....

Your point being?

So were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

 

[ninja007]

Obama- no 9/11, no fannie freddie fallout yet GWB was still miles better.....

 

[ninja007]

the DNC and libs in general remind me of sloppy little kids; they always make a MESS and the responsible people clean it up.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Weird thing is next to none of this debt is from Infrastructure, science(nasa in 1968 was closer to 100+ billion per year, dollar per dollar), r&d or education. We spent far more on science and infrastructure, 50 years ago than today. Weird how so many seem to target what helps the avg American the most and benefits our country in a positive way.


What is the cause of our debt??? Welfare, medical care and the military. We spend half of the godforsaken budget on welfare.

 

[hipeter924]

The cause of the debt is nearly 50 years of neglect of either education, healthcare or infrastructure. Plus each generation of politicians just passing the problems on to the next one, till they reach crisis point.

 

[Star]

The Weird thing is next to none of this debt is from Infrastructure, science(nasa in 1968 was closer to 100+ billion per year, dollar per dollar), r&d or education. We spent far more on science and infrastructure, 50 years ago than today. Weird how so many seem to target what helps the avg American the most and benefits our country in a positive way.


What is the cause of our debt??? Welfare, medical care and the military. We spend half of the godforsaken budget on welfare.

I agree with most of what you had to say in your post but-----but according to the article c&ped below, you missed the mark by about 90% (of your 50%) on welfare spending.
Please explain?

How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?
By Kevin Drum
Feb. 13, 2012

<snip>

...the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities decided to add up the numbers and figure out how much money the federal government spends on the nonworking poor. The answer: about 10 percent of all federal welfare spending. How did they come up with that? CBPP's methodology uses census data to figure out exactly where program dollars are going, but you can get pretty much the same answer using a simpler, easier-to-understand technique. Step One is to list every federal welfare program. Step Two is to deduct spending on the elderly, blind, and seriously disabled. That's Social Security, Medicare, SSI, and about two-thirds of Medicaid. Step Three is to deduct spending that goes to the working poor. That's unemployment compensation, EITC, and child tax credits. Step Four is to add up the rest. This overstates how much goes to the nonworking poor, since these programs are open to both working and nonworking families, but it gives you a rough idea.

It comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Once you account for the fact that some of these program dollars go to the working poor, you end up with CBPP's estimate of 10 percent, or about 5 percent of the whole federal budget.

...I'll bet most people think we spend a lot more than 5 percent of the federal budget on this stuff. They might be surprised to know the real numbers. The CBPP's chart is below, with spending on the nonworking poor highlighted.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You think having to deal with the fallout of Bush's wars has anything to do with this?

Obama took over an economy shot to hell and wars in two places and a budget that was going out of control on those wars. Who'd have been able to do anything different?
And the funny thing is the right are having a go at him for not spending enough on killing Muslims too.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The Weird thing is next to none of this debt is from Infrastructure, science(nasa in 1968 was closer to 100+ billion per year, dollar per dollar), r&d or education. We spent far more on science and infrastructure, 50 years ago than today. Weird how so many seem to target what helps the avg American the most and benefits our country in a positive way.


What is the cause of our debt??? Welfare, medical care and the military. We spend half of the godforsaken budget on welfare.

I agree with most of what you had to say in your post but-----but according to the article c&ped below, you missed the mark by about 90% (of your 50%) on welfare spending.
Please explain?

How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?
By Kevin Drum
Feb. 13, 2012

<snip>

...the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities decided to add up the numbers and figure out how much money the federal government spends on the nonworking poor. The answer: about 10 percent of all federal welfare spending. How did they come up with that? CBPP's methodology uses census data to figure out exactly where program dollars are going, but you can get pretty much the same answer using a simpler, easier-to-understand technique. Step One is to list every federal welfare program. Step Two is to deduct spending on the elderly, blind, and seriously disabled. That's Social Security, Medicare, SSI, and about two-thirds of Medicaid. Step Three is to deduct spending that goes to the working poor. That's unemployment compensation, EITC, and child tax credits. Step Four is to add up the rest. This overstates how much goes to the nonworking poor, since these programs are open to both working and nonworking families, but it gives you a rough idea.

It comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Once you account for the fact that some of these program dollars go to the working poor, you end up with CBPP's estimate of 10 percent, or about 5 percent of the whole federal budget.

...I'll bet most people think we spend a lot more than 5 percent of the federal budget on this stuff. They might be surprised to know the real numbers. The CBPP's chart is below, with spending on the nonworking poor highlighted.

.

Excellent contribution. Please consider starting a new thread with it.

 

[zeke]

You think having to deal with the fallout of Bush's wars has anything to do with this?

Obama took over an economy shot to hell and wars in two places and a budget that was going out of control on those wars. Who'd have been able to do anything different?
And the funny thing is the right are having a go at him for not spending enough on killing Muslims too.

Nope. The stupid fucking right wingers on here are SURE that Bush left Obama a thriving economy. And if they admit that the economy wasn't EXACTLY thriving, that it was Obama's fault that the economy wan't thriving.
There by making everything wrong with our current economic situation ALL Obama's fault.

Hard to argue with idiots like the right wingers on here when they believe the bullshit that they believe. I wonder why people even try.

 

[Theowl32]

You think having to deal with the fallout of Bush's wars has anything to do with this?

Obama took over an economy shot to hell and wars in two places and a budget that was going out of control on those wars. Who'd have been able to do anything different?
And the funny thing is the right are having a go at him for not spending enough on killing Muslims too.

Nope. The stupid fucking right wingers on here are SURE that Bush left Obama a thriving economy. And if they admit that the economy wasn't EXACTLY thriving, that it was Obama's fault that the economy wan't thriving.
There by making everything wrong with our current economic situation ALL Obama's fault.

Hard to argue with idiots like the right wingers on here when they believe the bullshit that they believe. I wonder why people even try.

Another tool who is in denial that the economy took a nose dive after the democrats took over the purse strings in 2007.

Let us see. The economy was doing pretty well until 2006. The unemployment rate was 4.6. Then, and then, aaaaaannnnd then, Pelosi took over with the rest of the lying socialist thieves.

What happened when the democrats had control beginning in 2007 and a super control in 2009?

What happened when the republicans took over the House in 2010?

Folks, liberals are liars. They hate America. They relish the thought of America's destruction. They state on here every day how much they hate capitalism and the free market. They hate corporations and the want to tax corporations to death.

They then marvel at the fact that corporations lay off workers to protect their assets when the socialist taxing democrats take over power.

Those same corportations then start hiring again when they sense the republicans take over, who love to give companies tax incentives to hire. Hence, the rate starts going down upon republicans taking over. The same fucking liberals, then hold protest rallies for that.


Wait for it.........

They will now point out the Clinton years. Yeah, they forget the republicans controlled the HOUSE AND SENATE during those years, that Clinton was the first president in 50 years to not have to deal with the cold war (TY Reagan) and the internet came into being (uhhhh ty Gore?).

Liberals are double talking losers. They claim to hate wall street then they cheer over the ZERO INTERST RATE POLICY that only pays off the millionaires and billionaires that helped the democrats. Notice how these pieces of shit never complain how the sweet deals Warren Buffet get, or the fact that GE paid zero taxes? GE owns NBC still?

Fucking liberals are liars. They are all pieces of American hating shit. They take on both sides of every issue. They deserve zero respect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You think having to deal with the fallout of Bush's wars has anything to do with this?

Obama took over an economy shot to hell and wars in two places and a budget that was going out of control on those wars. Who'd have been able to do anything different?
And the funny thing is the right are having a go at him for not spending enough on killing Muslims too.

Nope. The stupid fucking right wingers on here are SURE that Bush left Obama a thriving economy. And if they admit that the economy wasn't EXACTLY thriving, that it was Obama's fault that the economy wan't thriving.
There by making everything wrong with our current economic situation ALL Obama's fault.

Hard to argue with idiots like the right wingers on here when they believe the bullshit that they believe. I wonder why people even try.

Another tool who is in denial that the economy took a nose dive after the democrats took over the purse strings in 2007.

Let us see. The economy was doing pretty well until 2006. The unemployment rate was 4.6. Then, and then, aaaaaannnnd then, Pelosi took over with the rest of the lying socialist thieves.

What happened when the democrats had control beginning in 2007 and a super control in 2009?

What happened when the republicans took over the House in 2010?

Folks, liberals are liars. They hate America. They relish the thought of America's destruction. They state on here every day how much they hate capitalism and the free market. They hate corporations and the want to tax corporations to death.

They then marvel at the fact that corporations lay off workers to protect their assets when the socialist taxing democrats take over power.

Those same corportations then start hiring again when they sense the republicans take over, who love to give companies tax incentives to hire. Hence, the rate starts going down upon republicans taking over. The same fucking liberals, then hold protest rallies for that.


Wait for it.........

They will now point out the Clinton years. Yeah, they forget the republicans controlled the HOUSE AND SENATE during those years, that Clinton was the first president in 50 years to not have to deal with the cold war (TY Reagan) and the internet came into being (uhhhh ty Gore?).

Liberals are double talking losers. They claim to hate wall street then they cheer over the ZERO INTERST RATE POLICY that only pays off the millionaires and billionaires that helped the democrats. Notice how these pieces of shit never complain how the sweet deals Warren Buffet get, or the fact that GE paid zero taxes? GE owns NBC still?

Fucking liberals are liars. They are all pieces of American hating shit. They take on both sides of every issue. They deserve zero respect.

Pelosi had nothing to do with it. Nothing you posted above shows that the Democrats had anything to do with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

During Obama's presidency, approximately 2 trillion in spending has had to go to just paying the interest on the debt accumulated by past presidents.

No other president has ever had to face that.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

 

[IcebergSlim]

In the course of Reagan's two terms the gross debt nearly tripled....within a few years of his departure, his fiscal legacy had generated a 4 bagger....

Obama's deficits are bigger than Reagan's entire budget!
Reagan's time is remembered rightly as a time of great prosperity and growth.
Obama's time is remembered as a time of stagnation and decay.

Reagan had a 16 month recession in his first term that started 6 months AFTER he took office.

Yes he did. It was teh result of the Fed raising rates to unparalleled levels to wring out the inflation caused by Reagan's predecessors. It was successful and when he left office both inflation and unemployment were much less.
Boy do you look stupid, uh?

An argument can be made that the freezes imposed by Nixon had lasting effects, but I'm hard pressed to see how that could be blamed on Reagan's immediate predecessor.....

Because you're not very well informed? Just a guess. Had you lived through that time you would know.

I did.....now you are at liberty to put up........

 

[IcebergSlim]

Hi canada. Why don't you tell us what Reagan spent on as compared to what Obama does. Not relevant, eh canada?

You even know what the cold war was, or do you think that was all another American myth? You have any idea what the arms race was? Tell us all about it canada.

You have any clue about the space race and what was spent on that?

You fucking liberals. I am here to remind you of the epic failure of the left wing dream. The destruction of the USSR and Marxism not even lasting one hundred year. NOT EVEN ONE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS.

Yes, canada. Stats are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital. I will be waiting for to tell me about the arms race, and I will be waiting for the hippies to tell us how unnecessary a strong military or mass military spending was during the 80s.

The point is, canadian socialist, canada really benefits from our Monroe doctrine even today. I think we ought to force canada to contribute to our military.

Then again, canada does have the canadian snowbirds.



Check em out everyone. The canadian airforce. <snicker>

The "canadian airforce."

Debt grew by $2.27 trillion under Reagan. Defense spending in constant dollars was $378 billion in 1979. By the end of 1988, it had risen to $532 billion. Accumulated increased defense spending under Reagan was $867 billion, accounting for 38% of the total debt build-up under Reagan.

Had defense spending been held constant, accumulated debt under Reagan would have risen by $1.41 trillion or 68%, still the highest since WWII.

Defense Spending Since WWII United States 1975-1990 - Federal State Local Data

Hope that helps.

Don't forget that Reagan also cut taxes while escalating the cost of the Cold War, which is fiscal insanity.

Were taxes higher or lower when he left office?
Darn, that's two.

Social Security sure wasn't......

And cutting taxes is easy.....making your nut is a bit more of a challenge.....and Reagan failed miserably....

Your point being?

So were taxes higher or lower when Reagan left office?

They were lower....outlays, in nominal terms had nearly doubled......Gross debt nearly tripled.....As Greenspan points out, Reagan had "spent forward"...

Once again, your point being?

 

[IcebergSlim]

the DNC and libs in general remind me of sloppy little kids; they always make a MESS and the responsible people clean it up.

That's funny....Reagan left a massive structural deficit for Poppy and CLinton to clean up........and Scrub?

The less said about that unprecedented disaster, the better.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Obama- no 9/11, no fannie freddie fallout yet GWB was still miles better.....

Shall we go through the numbers?

 

[IcebergSlim]

You think having to deal with the fallout of Bush's wars has anything to do with this?

Obama took over an economy shot to hell and wars in two places and a budget that was going out of control on those wars. Who'd have been able to do anything different?
And the funny thing is the right are having a go at him for not spending enough on killing Muslims too.

Nope. The stupid fucking right wingers on here are SURE that Bush left Obama a thriving economy. And if they admit that the economy wasn't EXACTLY thriving, that it was Obama's fault that the economy wan't thriving.
There by making everything wrong with our current economic situation ALL Obama's fault.

Hard to argue with idiots like the right wingers on here when they believe the bullshit that they believe. I wonder why people even try.

Another tool who is in denial that the economy took a nose dive after the democrats took over the purse strings in 2007.

Let us see. The economy was doing pretty well until 2006. The unemployment rate was 4.6. Then, and then, aaaaaannnnd then, Pelosi took over with the rest of the lying socialist thieves.

What happened when the democrats had control beginning in 2007 and a super control in 2009?

What happened when the republicans took over the House in 2010?

Folks, liberals are liars. They hate America. They relish the thought of America's destruction. They state on here every day how much they hate capitalism and the free market. They hate corporations and the want to tax corporations to death.

They then marvel at the fact that corporations lay off workers to protect their assets when the socialist taxing democrats take over power.

Those same corportations then start hiring again when they sense the republicans take over, who love to give companies tax incentives to hire. Hence, the rate starts going down upon republicans taking over. The same fucking liberals, then hold protest rallies for that.


Wait for it.........

They will now point out the Clinton years. Yeah, they forget the republicans controlled the HOUSE AND SENATE during those years, that Clinton was the first president in 50 years to not have to deal with the cold war (TY Reagan) and the internet came into being (uhhhh ty Gore?).

Liberals are double talking losers. They claim to hate wall street then they cheer over the ZERO INTERST RATE POLICY that only pays off the millionaires and billionaires that helped the democrats. Notice how these pieces of shit never complain how the sweet deals Warren Buffet get, or the fact that GE paid zero taxes? GE owns NBC still?

Fucking liberals are liars. They are all pieces of American hating shit. They take on both sides of every issue. They deserve zero respect.

Why don't you take a stab at identifying a legislative initiative of the 110th Congress which played a role in the Economic Disaster spawned by the AhDolt Administration......

Skip The Narrative and focus on what can be verified.....