Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Under Speaker Pelosi

[Meister]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

as long as you posted it...why don't you link it also?

 

[Trajan]

This Bitch is out of control.


Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’
Monday,
October 25, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holds one of the pens used by President Barack Obama to sign the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(CNSNews.com) - When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).

Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined


Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ?No New Deficit Spending? | CNSnews.com

As I have shown many times before, CON$ will argue one thing today and the opposite the next day depending on what suits their spin.

If you remember when CON$ were claiming that Obama was TRIPLING Bush's biggest deficit year which was 2008, they claimed the Bush deficit for 2008 was $410 Billion, but now that they want to blame Bush's deficit spending on Pelosi they claim the 2008 deficit was $1.438 Trillion.

For the Bush Budget years 2007, 2008 and 2009 the CON$ claim a total deficit of $979 Billion, but for the Pelosi Budget years 2007, 2008, and 2009 the CON$ claim a total deficit of $3.6 Trillion.

You have to admire the shamelessness of CON$ervative liars!

if you read the article (you get an explanation for the debt increases under the previous speakers too)...try it sometime...ffs.

 

[Mini 14]

Did Ed haul ass right as I asked him for clarification?

I'm dying to know the real answer, and he evidently is the only one who has the real numbers!?!

Crap.....

Waiting patiently......

 

[edthecynic]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

as long as you posted it...why don't you link it also?

Your own phony chart that omits the off budget deficit spending for the Bush years confirms the numbers I posted for the deficit spending that CON$ use for Bush. Once CON$ bring up deficit spending for Dems, suddenly no deficit spending is off budget. This is why no honest person believes any stat from a CON$ervative. An honest chart would have not omitted off budget spending for Bush.

Here is the link to Bush's phony deficit numbers your dishonest graph was made from:

$400 billion deficit to greet Bush's successor - USATODAY.com

And here is the debt to the penny calculator to find out what Bush's actual deficit spending was for the years posted in your dishonest chart.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[edthecynic]

Ed,
I'm a "con" but I have made no claims about deficits or budgets under Bush or Pelosi. Since you obviously have access to the real numbers, and us cons do not, would you please tell me what the deficit was when Pelosi became speaker and what is it today?

Thanks in advance

Obviously you are a CON$ervative because you want to be TOLD rather than figure things out for yourself. All that meaningless info is already posted in this thread, just try reading it.

The deficit is mostly the money poured down the rat-hole of Bush's wars and interest on the $9 trillion in debt run up by 9/11 Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

No, it isn't. You say every number everyone else has posted is incorrect, and the only number you've given is a number for bush's entire administration. I'd like to know what was the deficit the day Pelosi became Speaker, and what is it today.

You're obviously an expert, as you've corrected everyone who has posted in this thread, so I am asking you based on your expertise.

Again, thanks in advance

Again you prove you are a CON$ervative. You create a Straw Man and then argue against the words YOU put in your Straw Man's mouth.

What I actually said was CON$ use TWO sets of deficit numbers for the same years. They use numbers that do not include Bush's "OFF BUDGET" DEFICIT SPENDING for the GOP deficit spending, but include all the "OFF BUDGET" DEFICIT SPENDING for the exact same years for the Dems. I never said the numbers were WRONG, I said using TWO different sets of numbers was DISHONEST.
Get it?

 

[Jroc]

The problem with you libs is you never complain about speeding ever, unless they want to let people keep their own money with tax cuts, or spend more on defense which is one of the jobs of the federal government. You people are the ones that demagog "no tax cuts for the rich" even though revenues to the federal government are increased with tax cuts, "don't touch my Social Security" even though its going broke and cannot sustain itself as it is now. We conservative have always complained about spending but you libs just want more big government, more social programs, more, and more, and more. You fools

 

[edthecynic]

The problem with you libs is you never complain about speeding ever, unless they want to let people keep their own money with tax cuts, or spend more on defense which is one of the jobs of the federal government. You people are the ones that demagog "no tax cuts for the rich" even though revenues to the federal government are increased with tax cuts, "don't touch my Social Security" even though its going broke and cannot sustain itself as it is now. We conservative have always complained about spending but you libs just want more big government, more social programs, more, and more, and more. You fools

Revenue does not increase when taxes are cut and SS has a surplus of several trillion dollars which was raided by the tax cutters to offset the loss of tax revenues from the tax cuts. And CON$ always whine about spending as they deficit spend.

 

[Jroc]

The problem with you libs is you never complain about speeding ever, unless they want to let people keep their own money with tax cuts, or spend more on defense which is one of the jobs of the federal government. You people are the ones that demagog "no tax cuts for the rich" even though revenues to the federal government are increased with tax cuts, "don't touch my Social Security" even though its going broke and cannot sustain itself as it is now. We conservative have always complained about spending but you libs just want more big government, more social programs, more, and more, and more. You fools

Revenue does not increase when taxes are cut and SS has a surplus of several trillion dollars which was raided by the tax cutters to offset the loss of tax revenues from the tax cuts. And CON$ always whine about spending as they deficit spend.

You’re so full of shit..Let me give you the bottom line idiot...Government is too big, they waste our money on stupid shit, and idiots like you are the problem with this country. Oh and Social Security was combined, and put into the general fund by Liberal president LBJ. Before that it was separate, Regardless it has to be reformed, too many people are collecting and not enough working people to support them. Thats the way it is... Wake blind man.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a "surprise windfall."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/03/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/



Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

 

[jreeves]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

Stimulus law that was passed by Obama and Dems through an off budget process counts against Bush you are an idiot.

 

[jreeves]

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

CON$ can only argue by ad hominem, they can't argue with facts.

Below are the claimed budget deficits for the 8 Bush years:

Federal budgets, deficits during the Bush years
2002
Spending: $2.01 trillion
 Deficit: $157.8 billion
2003
Spending: $2.16T 
Deficit: $377.6B
2004
Spending: $2.29T
 Deficit: $412.7B
2005
Spending: $2.47T 
Deficit: $318.3B
2006
Spending: $2.66T 
Deficit: $248.2B
2007
Spending: $2.73T 
Deficit: $162B
2008 (estimated)
Spending: $2.93 T
Deficit: $410B
2009 (estimated)
Spending: $3.11 T
Deficit: $407.4B

For a total deficit of $2.5 Trillion claimed for Bush's 8 budgets.
But somehow the National debt rose $6 Trillion from $5,806,151,389,190.21 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 during that exact same period. That means Bush kept $3.5 Trillion in deficit spending "off budget."

as long as you posted it...why don't you link it also?

Your own phony chart that omits the off budget deficit spending for the Bush years confirms the numbers I posted for the deficit spending that CON$ use for Bush. Once CON$ bring up deficit spending for Dems, suddenly no deficit spending is off budget. This is why no honest person believes any stat from a CON$ervative. An honest chart would have not omitted off budget spending for Bush.

Here is the link to Bush's phony deficit numbers your dishonest graph was made from:

$400 billion deficit to greet Bush's successor - USATODAY.com

And here is the debt to the penny calculator to find out what Bush's actual deficit spending was for the years posted in your dishonest chart.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Your charts also include local and state securities which are not a contributor to the national debt.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem with you libs is you never complain about speeding ever, unless they want to let people keep their own money with tax cuts, or spend more on defense which is one of the jobs of the federal government. You people are the ones that demagog "no tax cuts for the rich" even though revenues to the federal government are increased with tax cuts, "don't touch my Social Security" even though its going broke and cannot sustain itself as it is now. We conservative have always complained about spending but you libs just want more big government, more social programs, more, and more, and more. You fools

Revenue does not increase when taxes are cut and SS has a surplus of several trillion dollars which was raided by the tax cutters to offset the loss of tax revenues from the tax cuts. And CON$ always whine about spending as they deficit spend.

You’re so full of shit..Let me give you the bottom line idiot...Government is too big, they waste our money on stupid shit, and idiots like you are the problem with this country. Oh and Social Security was combined, and put into the general fund by Liberal president LBJ. Before that it was separate, Regardless it has to be reformed, too many people are collecting and not enough working people to support them. Thats the way it is... Wake blind man.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

All you mindless drones parrot the same lies over and over again. Your OWN chart shows that revenue went down in 1982 and 1983 from St Ronnie's tax cuts. What you dishonest CON$ always leave out is after 9/11 Reagan saw the loss in revenue and then he RAISED taxes 8 times in 6 years and those tax increases are what increased revenue from 1984 on.

Reagan raised taxes more than any other peacetime president in history.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax, so the rich paid less in taxes, and raised every regressive tax he could like payroll taxes and the gas tax, increasing the total tax burdon of the middle class and the poor.

 

[edthecynic]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

as long as you posted it...why don't you link it also?

Your own phony chart that omits the off budget deficit spending for the Bush years confirms the numbers I posted for the deficit spending that CON$ use for Bush. Once CON$ bring up deficit spending for Dems, suddenly no deficit spending is off budget. This is why no honest person believes any stat from a CON$ervative. An honest chart would have not omitted off budget spending for Bush.

Here is the link to Bush's phony deficit numbers your dishonest graph was made from:

$400 billion deficit to greet Bush's successor - USATODAY.com

And here is the debt to the penny calculator to find out what Bush's actual deficit spending was for the years posted in your dishonest chart.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Your charts also include local and state securities which are not a contributor to the national debt.

I nailed you on that same lie on another thread, retelling that lie on this thread does not make it any less a lie.

 

[jingjing2116]

I like this article; I hope you can continue to the fund! This article feel good, there are deep moral, mood is not bad, you have such thoughts, I am very impressed. You are great!Although I am just passing through, but I think I will be your feelings these words long. Thank you, so that I can share with you.

 

[edthecynic]

This Bitch is out of control.


Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’
Monday,
October 25, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey



Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ?No New Deficit Spending? | CNSnews.com

From your link:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot spend any money that has not been approved by congressional appropriations; and, by congressional precedent, appropriations bills originate in the House.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," says Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.

The rest of the story CON$ always leave out.

The President is required to annually prepare and submit a comprehensive federal
budget to Congress for the fiscal year that begins on October 1 (31 U.S.C. 1105). The
President sets out his national priorities and proposes policy initiatives in the federal
budget submitted to Congress soon after Congress convenes in January. The President’s
budget submission provides him the opportunity to influence the agenda for the upcoming
budget and policy debate in Congress. For more information on budget process, see
[http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/guidehome.shtml].

 

[Jroc]

Revenue does not increase when taxes are cut and SS has a surplus of several trillion dollars which was raided by the tax cutters to offset the loss of tax revenues from the tax cuts. And CON$ always whine about spending as they deficit spend.

You’re so full of shit..Let me give you the bottom line idiot...Government is too big, they waste our money on stupid shit, and idiots like you are the problem with this country. Oh and Social Security was combined, and put into the general fund by Liberal president LBJ. Before that it was separate, Regardless it has to be reformed, too many people are collecting and not enough working people to support them. Thats the way it is... Wake blind man.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

All you mindless drones parrot the same lies over and over again. Your OWN chart shows that revenue went down in 1982 and 1983 from St Ronnie's tax cuts. What you dishonest CON$ always leave out is after 9/11 Reagan saw the loss in revenue and then he RAISED taxes 8 times in 6 years and those tax increases are what increased revenue from 1984 on.

Reagan raised taxes more than any other peacetime president in history.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax, so the rich paid less in taxes, and raised every regressive tax he could like payroll taxes and the gas tax, increasing the total tax burdon of the middle class and the poor.

Overall revenue went up over 1 trillion dollars idiot..and the tax burden was shifted even more toward the wealthy, unlike you're stupid propaganda that you spew out says Wake up and get you're head out of you're socialist ass

 

[Jroc]

This Bitch is out of control.


Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’
Monday,
October 25, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey



Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ?No New Deficit Spending? | CNSnews.com

From your link:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot spend any money that has not been approved by congressional appropriations; and, by congressional precedent, appropriations bills originate in the House.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," says Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.

The rest of the story CON$ always leave out.

The President is required to annually prepare and submit a comprehensive federal
budget to Congress for the fiscal year that begins on October 1 (31 U.S.C. 1105). The
President sets out his national priorities and proposes policy initiatives in the federal
budget submitted to Congress soon after Congress convenes in January. The President’s
budget submission provides him the opportunity to influence the agenda for the upcoming
budget and policy debate in Congress. For more information on budget process, see
[http://www.crs.gov/products/guides/guidehome.shtml].

If you don't make deals with the socialist, They'll shut the government down, then blame you for starving old people...I say fuck um.... but of course a socialist like you would be picketing outside the White House with you're grandmother.. :cuckoo


Are these you're people looser?...


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

You’re so full of shit..Let me give you the bottom line idiot...Government is too big, they waste our money on stupid shit, and idiots like you are the problem with this country. Oh and Social Security was combined, and put into the general fund by Liberal president LBJ. Before that it was separate, Regardless it has to be reformed, too many people are collecting and not enough working people to support them. Thats the way it is... Wake blind man.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

All you mindless drones parrot the same lies over and over again. Your OWN chart shows that revenue went down in 1982 and 1983 from St Ronnie's tax cuts. What you dishonest CON$ always leave out is after 9/11 Reagan saw the loss in revenue and then he RAISED taxes 8 times in 6 years and those tax increases are what increased revenue from 1984 on.

Reagan raised taxes more than any other peacetime president in history.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax, so the rich paid less in taxes, and raised every regressive tax he could like payroll taxes and the gas tax, increasing the total tax burdon of the middle class and the poor.

Overall revenue went up over 1 trillion dollars idiot..and the tax burden was shifted even more toward the wealthy, unlike you're stupid propaganda that you spew out says Wake up and get you're head out of you're socialist ass

Come on, you Fascists should have realized by now that you can't deceive a Cynic with a half truth!

Overall revenue went up only after Reagan raised taxes and the tax burden shifted towards the wealthy only because income shifted greatly toward the wealthy.

Your chart deliberately and dishonestly leaves out the increase in income of the top percents!!!

 

[Jroc]

Those graphs don't show anything do you get all of you're info from the same socialist union websites?

[

Income Growth of the Lowest Fifth

The 13 percent increase in middle class family income during the Reagan expansion years is irrefutable, but some have asserted that the average income of the bottom fifth fell during the 1980s. Is this factually correct? An answer to this question is provided in the graph on the next page. This graph of the average real income of the bottom fifth of families mirrors the historical pattern of the median family income, with significant income growth during the Reagan expansion period

These data on the average income of the bottom fifth are provided to illustrate a point. Of the commonly cited decline in this measure between 1979 and 1989, 153 percent is accounted for in the single year of 1980, the last year of the Carter Administration. Clearly it is extremely misleading to attribute the dramatically negative effects of this single year of 1980 to the Reagan period. Moreover, extensive JEC research on income mobility demonstrates that the validity of this average income measure is dubious because most of the members of the bottom fifth in 1979 had exited the bottom fifth and moved to higher levels of income by the end of the 1980s.

These data on the average income of the bottom fifth are provided to illustrate a point. Of the commonly cited decline in this measure between 1979 and 1989, 153 percent is accounted for in the single year of 1980, the last year of the Carter Administration. Clearly it is extremely misleading to attribute the dramatically negative effects of this single year of 1980 to the Reagan period. Moreover, extensive JEC research on income mobility demonstrates that the validity of this average income measure is dubious because most of the members of the bottom fifth in 1979 had exited the bottom fifth and moved to higher levels of income by the end of the 1980s.




Was a member of you're family an Air Traffic Controller?... This is great !!... Fired those law breaking bastards.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8brHWFZMY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8brHWFZMY[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Those graphs don't show anything do you get all of you're info from the same socialist union websites?

[

Income Growth of the Lowest Fifth

The 13 percent increase in middle class family income during the Reagan expansion years is irrefutable, but some have asserted that the average income of the bottom fifth fell during the 1980s. Is this factually correct? An answer to this question is provided in the graph on the next page. This graph of the average real income of the bottom fifth of families mirrors the historical pattern of the median family income, with significant income growth during the Reagan expansion period

These data on the average income of the bottom fifth are provided to illustrate a point. Of the commonly cited decline in this measure between 1979 and 1989, 153 percent is accounted for in the single year of 1980, the last year of the Carter Administration. Clearly it is extremely misleading to attribute the dramatically negative effects of this single year of 1980 to the Reagan period. Moreover, extensive JEC research on income mobility demonstrates that the validity of this average income measure is dubious because most of the members of the bottom fifth in 1979 had exited the bottom fifth and moved to higher levels of income by the end of the 1980s.

These data on the average income of the bottom fifth are provided to illustrate a point. Of the commonly cited decline in this measure between 1979 and 1989, 153 percent is accounted for in the single year of 1980, the last year of the Carter Administration. Clearly it is extremely misleading to attribute the dramatically negative effects of this single year of 1980 to the Reagan period. Moreover, extensive JEC research on income mobility demonstrates that the validity of this average income measure is dubious because most of the members of the bottom fifth in 1979 had exited the bottom fifth and moved to higher levels of income by the end of the 1980s.




Was a member of you're family an Air Traffic Controller?... This is great !!... Fired those law breaking bastards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8brHWFZMY

My charts are infinitely better and more informative on how they were made and even include the raw data, than the crap from your GOP CON$ervoFascist Anti-American web sites.

Distribution of household income in the United States of America from 1967 through 2003. Numbers are normalized to 2003 United States dollars. The data source is DeNavas-Walt, Carmen; Bernadette D. Proctor, Robert J. Mills (08 2004). "Table A-3: Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2003" (in English) (PDF). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003. U.S. Census Bureau. pp. 36-37. Retrieved 2007-06-16.

# Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003
# Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Robert J. Mills
# August 2004
# U.S. Census Bureau
# U.S. Department of Commerce
# Table A-3: Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion: 1967 to 2003
# pages 36-37

# Household Income at Selected Percentiles

# Percentile
# (median)
#Year 10th 20th 50th 80th 90th 95th
1967 7790 14002 33338 55265 70443 88678
1968 8472 14912 34746 56937 71799 89076
1969 8600 15369 36074 59772 76117 93743
1970 8435 15126 35832 60148 76719 95090
1971 8446 14927 35463 59708 76599 94818
1972 9009 15434 36953 62878 80793 101215
1973 9314 15844 37700 64500 82360 102243
1974 9401 16064 36537 63477 81577 101433
1975 9125 15143 35559 61765 78652 98484
1976 9168 15615 36155 63247 80701 100839
1977 9259 15573 36359 64564 81742 104377
1978 9745 16398 38693 67874 87110 109348
1979 9589 16457 38649 68318 88588 111445
1980 9515 15977 37447 67028 86692 108894
1981 9280 15772 36868 66878 86401 108822
1982 9216 15548 36811 66920 87717 111516
1983 9167 15769 36593 68154 88712 113187
1984 9542 16175 37767 70092 92299 117253
1985 9583 16306 38510 71433 93483 119459
1986 9526 16586 39868 73853 97043 125264
1987 9452 16724 40357 74893 98333 125321
1988 9817 17006 40678 75593 101339 127958
1989 10315 17329 41411 76946 103865 131443
1990 9965 17059 40865 75341 101857 129307
1991 9776 16580 39679 74759 100833 126969
1992 9655 16190 39364 74533 101023 127230
1993 9635 16256 39165 75594 103010 131178
1994 9914 16484 39613 77154 104890 134835
1995 10501 17261 40845 78061 106436 135448
1996 10474 17239 41431 79395 108450 139541
1997 10588 17601 42294 81719 112241 144636
1998 10979 18164 43825 84529 114396 148995
1999 11420 18915 44922 87459 118969 156744
2000 11304 19142 44853 87341 119636 155121
2001 11105 18674 43882 86771 118080 156395
2002 10863 18326 43381 85941 116726 153438
2003 10536 17984 43318 86867 118200 154120

 

[jreeves]

Your own phony chart that omits the off budget deficit spending for the Bush years confirms the numbers I posted for the deficit spending that CON$ use for Bush. Once CON$ bring up deficit spending for Dems, suddenly no deficit spending is off budget. This is why no honest person believes any stat from a CON$ervative. An honest chart would have not omitted off budget spending for Bush.

Here is the link to Bush's phony deficit numbers your dishonest graph was made from:

$400 billion deficit to greet Bush's successor - USATODAY.com

And here is the debt to the penny calculator to find out what Bush's actual deficit spending was for the years posted in your dishonest chart.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Your charts also include local and state securities which are not a contributor to the national debt.

I nailed you on that same lie on another thread, retelling that lie on this thread does not make it any less a lie.

It's on your link, just cause you fail to face reality doesn't make it any less true. Also you want to count Bush's off budget spending but discard Obama's off budget spending(stimulus, ominous bill, etc...). So the only nail, is the one in the coffin of your argument....