In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

[healthmyths]

So where are all you idiots that claim Bush spent like a "drunken sailor"?
Were you around after the below events occurred?
Why haven't some of you recognized in 6 years Obama has over spent revenues 400% more then Bush did in 6 years!

Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $8 trillion market loss
Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year! $5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $8 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives, $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets. Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World
Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Historical Tables

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

 

[Manonthestreet]

You have an even bigger dot nothing bomb on the way

 

[washamericom]

that would be unpatriotic.

 

[healthmyths]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

 

[sonic]

You're simply uninformed. First of all, Congress controls spending, not the President. Secondly, the big jump in spending is because Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books, something Obama and others railed against, and Obama followed through on his promise of remedying as soon as he got into office. Congress is out of control, but rest assured that Bush is responsible for getting us into two wars that are responsible for 1.5 trillion in spending. Beyond that, the tax cuts the Republicans passed during the Bush years are responsible for another 2.8 trillion, and the Bush Medicare expansion is responsible for another 250 billion dollars. All of this spending was inherited. I suggest you stop drinking the koolaid, learn the true facts, and stop buying the nonsense that the Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. So yeah, Bush and the Republicans absolutely spent like drunken sailors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're simply uninformed. First of all, Congress controls spending, not the President. Secondly, the big jump in spending is because Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books, something Obama and others railed against, and Obama followed through on his promise of remedying as soon as he got into office. Congress is out of control, but rest assured that Bush is responsible for getting us into two wars that are responsible for 1.5 trillion in spending. Beyond that, the tax cuts the Republicans passed during the Bush years are responsible for another 2.8 trillion, and the Bush Medicare expansion is responsible for another 250 billion dollars. All of this spending was inherited. I suggest you stop drinking the koolaid, learn the true facts, and stop buying the nonsense that the Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. So yeah, Bush and the Republicans absolutely spent like drunken sailors.

Secondly, the big jump in spending is because Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books,

How does someone keep the cost "off the books"?
Run through the steps.

 

[healthmyths]

You're simply uninformed. First of all, Congress controls spending, not the President. Secondly, the big jump in spending is because Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books, something Obama and others railed against, and Obama followed through on his promise of remedying as soon as he got into office. Congress is out of control, but rest assured that Bush is responsible for getting us into two wars that are responsible for 1.5 trillion in spending. Beyond that, the tax cuts the Republicans passed during the Bush years are responsible for another 2.8 trillion, and the Bush Medicare expansion is responsible for another 250 billion dollars. All of this spending was inherited. I suggest you stop drinking the koolaid, learn the true facts, and stop buying the nonsense that the Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. So yeah, Bush and the Republicans absolutely spent like drunken sailors.

You have NOT given any source for your information and therefore totally unbelievable.
Again check out this web site Historical Tables
Get these FACTS... then add some truthful information!

Also what do you mean "off the books" spending? Prove it.

 

[healthmyths]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

 

[healthmyths]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided.... what is your source???
Historical Tables

So using percent of national debt increase as YOU referenced:
Under Bush: When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion.
Under Bush........At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion.
Today Under Obama the national debt is:Today’s Federal Debt is about $19,052,956,251,000.
So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%... BUT remember included in The Obama receipts was this:

You wrote: "6 is 200% more than 2, FY"

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!
Now for your very obviously simple mind which is what Obamabrainless are known for go to this site and SEE the REALITY of simple arithmetic!

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 6 years Obama has spent 400% more revenue ($6.2T) then Bush did in 8 years!

Ummmmm...Bush added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $8.4 trillion, so far.
I don't know what orifice you pulled 400% out of............

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided.... what is your source???
Historical Tables

So using percent of national debt increase as YOU referenced:
Under Bush: When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion.
Under Bush........At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion.
Today Under Obama the national debt is:Today’s Federal Debt is about $19,052,956,251,000.
So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%... BUT remember included in The Obama receipts was this:
View attachment 64415



You wrote: "6 is 200% more than 2, FY"

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!
Now for your very obviously simple mind which is what Obamabrainless are known for go to this site and SEE the REALITY of simple arithmetic!

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

View attachment 64412

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided....

Yes, I see you were confused about your own source.

what is your source???

I showed you.....Debt to the Penny.

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!

Come on, I know you're bad at math, but you're not an Obamabot....are you?

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

Cute, but your original claim wasn't "what percent of" it was "spent 400% more".
Do you really not understand how "percentage increase" is different than "percentage of"? LOL!

So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%...

Yes, based on that starting point and that ending point, the debt has increased 79%.
Do you understand yet?

I can explain further if you don't get it yet......

 

[healthmyths]

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.3; Historical Tables (last accessed Feb 2, 2015).
Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.
Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.
Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided.... what is your source???
Historical Tables

So using percent of national debt increase as YOU referenced:
Under Bush: When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion.
Under Bush........At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion.
Today Under Obama the national debt is:Today’s Federal Debt is about $19,052,956,251,000.
So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%... BUT remember included in The Obama receipts was this:
View attachment 64415



You wrote: "6 is 200% more than 2, FY"

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!
Now for your very obviously simple mind which is what Obamabrainless are known for go to this site and SEE the REALITY of simple arithmetic!

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

View attachment 64412

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided....

Yes, I see you were confused about your own source.

what is your source???

I showed you.....Debt to the Penny.

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!

Come on, I know you're bad at math, but you're not an Obamabot....are you?

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

Cute, but your original claim wasn't "what percent of" it was "spent 400% more".
Do you really not understand how "percentage increase" is different than "percentage of"? LOL!

So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%...

Yes, based on that starting point and that ending point, the debt has increased 79%.
Do you understand yet?

I can explain further if you don't get it yet......

Here is exactly what I was pointing out when I started this thread:
Why haven't some of you recognized in 6 years Obama has over spent revenues 400% more then Bush did in 6 years!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.
That is pure and simple when you subtract $19.164 trillion spent of the $17.159 revenue you have a total DEFICIT of $2.005 Trillion.
Plain simple. Bush spent more money then came in by $2.005...i.e. Subtract $19.164 from $17.159 means a deficit of $2.005.

So with Obama in 7 years starting with 2009 and up to 2015 Obama receipts total $18.067 trillion. Obama Spent though $24.763 trillion.
This is $6.696 trillion more then what has come in...i.e. DEFICIT spending!
Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!

 

[Iceweasel]

You're simply uninformed. First of all, Congress controls spending, not the President. Secondly, the big jump in spending is because Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books, something Obama and others railed against, and Obama followed through on his promise of remedying as soon as he got into office. Congress is out of control, but rest assured that Bush is responsible for getting us into two wars that are responsible for 1.5 trillion in spending. Beyond that, the tax cuts the Republicans passed during the Bush years are responsible for another 2.8 trillion, and the Bush Medicare expansion is responsible for another 250 billion dollars. All of this spending was inherited. I suggest you stop drinking the koolaid, learn the true facts, and stop buying the nonsense that the Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than the Democrats. So yeah, Bush and the Republicans absolutely spent like drunken sailors.

Secondly, the big jump in spending is because Bush kept the cost of the two wars off the books,

How does someone keep the cost "off the books"?
Run through the steps.

Bush slid the invoices under his doormat.

 

[paulitician]

Good ole Bush and Obama. Like two peas in a pod. I told people early on that Hussein was merely continuing Bush's awful polices. There's still so many poor duped souls in America.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are right. I was wrong. it 347% not 400%.

No it isn't.

Under Bush there was $17.159 Trillion from 2001 to 2008 in receipts. Bush spent $19.164 Trillion (outlays) on the below events or $2.005 Trillion more than receipts.

No. He spent $4.9 trillion more than receipts.

Obama has had $18,117.8 Trillion from 2009 to 2014 in receipts. Obama has Outlays of $25.075 Trillion or $6.957 Trillion more then money coming in.

No. Between the day he took office and Feb 18, 2016, the debt has increased by $8.4 trillion.

Divide $6.957 trillion by $2.005 trillion and you have 347%

Yeah, divide two incorrect numbers, you'll get an incorrect answer.
Try to be more precise in your speech. That number is not 347% more, it's 247% more.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Errors.

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided.... what is your source???
Historical Tables

So using percent of national debt increase as YOU referenced:
Under Bush: When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion.
Under Bush........At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion.
Today Under Obama the national debt is:Today’s Federal Debt is about $19,052,956,251,000.
So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%... BUT remember included in The Obama receipts was this:
View attachment 64415



You wrote: "6 is 200% more than 2, FY"

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!
Now for your very obviously simple mind which is what Obamabrainless are known for go to this site and SEE the REALITY of simple arithmetic!

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

View attachment 64412

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided....

Yes, I see you were confused about your own source.

what is your source???

I showed you.....Debt to the Penny.

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!

Come on, I know you're bad at math, but you're not an Obamabot....are you?

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

Cute, but your original claim wasn't "what percent of" it was "spent 400% more".
Do you really not understand how "percentage increase" is different than "percentage of"? LOL!

So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%...

Yes, based on that starting point and that ending point, the debt has increased 79%.
Do you understand yet?

I can explain further if you don't get it yet......

Here is exactly what I was pointing out when I started this thread:
Why haven't some of you recognized in 6 years Obama has over spent revenues 400% more then Bush did in 6 years!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.
That pure and simple is when you subtract $19.164 trillion spent of the $17.159 revenue you have a total DEFICIT of $2.005 Trillion.
Plain simple. Bush spent more money then came in by $2.005...i.e. Subtract $19.164 from $17.159 means a deficit of $2.005.

So with Obama in 7 years starting with 2009 and up to 2015 Obama receipts total $18.067 trillion. Obama Spent though $24.763 trillion.
This is $6.696 trillion more then what has come in...i.e. DEFICIT spending!
Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.

Go back and look at your source. This isn't what it means.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?

Assuming those were the real numbers (they aren't), you have to subtract the smaller number from the larger and then divide your answer by the smaller number.

[(7.170-2.005)/2.005]*100% = 257.6% increase. Clear?

Back to my original statement, "6 is 200% more than 2, FYI"

2.5 is 25% more than 2. Clear?
3.0 is 50% more than 2. Clear?
3.5 is 75% more than 2. Clear?
4.0 is 100% more than 2. Clear?
5.0 is 150% more than 2. Clear?
6.0 is 200% more than 2. Got it?

 

[healthmyths]

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...
Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% . Pretty hard to mess that up.
Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided.... what is your source???
Historical Tables

So using percent of national debt increase as YOU referenced:
Under Bush: When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion.
Under Bush........At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion.
Today Under Obama the national debt is:Today’s Federal Debt is about $19,052,956,251,000.
So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%... BUT remember included in The Obama receipts was this:
View attachment 64415



You wrote: "6 is 200% more than 2, FY"

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!
Now for your very obviously simple mind which is what Obamabrainless are known for go to this site and SEE the REALITY of simple arithmetic!

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

View attachment 64412

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided....

Yes, I see you were confused about your own source.

what is your source???

I showed you.....Debt to the Penny.

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!

Come on, I know you're bad at math, but you're not an Obamabot....are you?

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

Cute, but your original claim wasn't "what percent of" it was "spent 400% more".
Do you really not understand how "percentage increase" is different than "percentage of"? LOL!

So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%...

Yes, based on that starting point and that ending point, the debt has increased 79%.
Do you understand yet?

I can explain further if you don't get it yet......

Here is exactly what I was pointing out when I started this thread:
Why haven't some of you recognized in 6 years Obama has over spent revenues 400% more then Bush did in 6 years!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.
That pure and simple is when you subtract $19.164 trillion spent of the $17.159 revenue you have a total DEFICIT of $2.005 Trillion.
Plain simple. Bush spent more money then came in by $2.005...i.e. Subtract $19.164 from $17.159 means a deficit of $2.005.

So with Obama in 7 years starting with 2009 and up to 2015 Obama receipts total $18.067 trillion. Obama Spent though $24.763 trillion.
This is $6.696 trillion more then what has come in...i.e. DEFICIT spending!
Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.

Go back and look at your source. This isn't what it means.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?

Assuming those were the real numbers (they aren't), you have to subtract the smaller number from the larger and then divide your answer by the smaller number.

[(7.170-2.005)/2.005]*100% = 257.6% increase. Clear?

Back to my original statement, "6 is 200% more than 2, FYI"

2.5 is 25% more than 2. Clear?
3.0 is 50% more than 2. Clear?
3.5 is 75% more than 2. Clear?
4.0 is 100% more than 2. Clear?
5.0 is 150% more than 2. Clear?
6.0 is 200% more than 2. Got it?

See you are not providing any proof independently. You are repeating your own screwed up math.
LOOK at the below examples.
Look at this link:
Percentage Calculator | Math Easy Solutions

And you are providing further proof THAT YOUR math is screwed up!

Percentage Calculator | Math Easy Solutions

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is your PROOF??? You made UP those numbers...

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Because simple math: Divide $6.696 Trillion over revenues by Obama by $2.005 trillion by Bush over revenues and you get 334% .

Spending over revenues? LOL! Normally that's called a deficit.
Deficits increase the debt. Which was the figure I referenced.

If you want to show how much Obama spent versus how much Bush spent, do that.
At least those would be a real numbers.

Here let's make it simple. $6 divided by $2 is 3 times or 300%

Yes, that's a simple way to show your original claim, "400% more", was really wrong.

6 is 200% more than 2, FYI.

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided.... what is your source???
Historical Tables

So using percent of national debt increase as YOU referenced:
Under Bush: When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion.
Under Bush........At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion.
Today Under Obama the national debt is:Today’s Federal Debt is about $19,052,956,251,000.
So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%... BUT remember included in The Obama receipts was this:
View attachment 64415



You wrote: "6 is 200% more than 2, FY"

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!
Now for your very obviously simple mind which is what Obamabrainless are known for go to this site and SEE the REALITY of simple arithmetic!

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

View attachment 64412

I used the terms that the WhiteHouse budget source provided....

Yes, I see you were confused about your own source.

what is your source???

I showed you.....Debt to the Penny.

This is what this forum has come too... i.e. showing the Obamabots how to do simple division!

Come on, I know you're bad at math, but you're not an Obamabot....are you?

6 is what percent of 2 - step by step solution

Cute, but your original claim wasn't "what percent of" it was "spent 400% more".
Do you really not understand how "percentage increase" is different than "percentage of"? LOL!

So dividing $19.052 trillion by $10.63 trillion you have 179%...

Yes, based on that starting point and that ending point, the debt has increased 79%.
Do you understand yet?

I can explain further if you don't get it yet......

Here is exactly what I was pointing out when I started this thread:
Why haven't some of you recognized in 6 years Obama has over spent revenues 400% more then Bush did in 6 years!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.
That pure and simple is when you subtract $19.164 trillion spent of the $17.159 revenue you have a total DEFICIT of $2.005 Trillion.
Plain simple. Bush spent more money then came in by $2.005...i.e. Subtract $19.164 from $17.159 means a deficit of $2.005.

So with Obama in 7 years starting with 2009 and up to 2015 Obama receipts total $18.067 trillion. Obama Spent though $24.763 trillion.
This is $6.696 trillion more then what has come in...i.e. DEFICIT spending!
Now a true comparison should be what is the total 8 years for Obama.
The estimate for 2016 is this: $3.525 trillion in Receipts..... $3.999 trillion in spending or a $.474 trillion.
Add that deficit to the total deficit Obama has rung up of $6.696 plus the 2016E of $.474 is $7.170 trillion total for 8 years.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?
Obama's deficit are 358% more then Bush's deficit spending.... i.e. nearly 400% deficit spending INCREASE by Obama!

I was addressing the reality of the total Revenues that came in from the start of 2001 to the end of 2008 under Bush Totaled $17.159 trillion.
Bush spent in 8 years of his administration $19.164 trillion.

Go back and look at your source. This isn't what it means.

Compare $7.170 trillion in deficit spending by Obama over 8 years to Bush's $2.005 deficit spending how much of an increase in the deficit spending?

Assuming those were the real numbers (they aren't), you have to subtract the smaller number from the larger and then divide your answer by the smaller number.

[(7.170-2.005)/2.005]*100% = 257.6% increase. Clear?

Back to my original statement, "6 is 200% more than 2, FYI"

2.5 is 25% more than 2. Clear?
3.0 is 50% more than 2. Clear?
3.5 is 75% more than 2. Clear?
4.0 is 100% more than 2. Clear?
5.0 is 150% more than 2. Clear?
6.0 is 200% more than 2. Got it?

See you are not providing any proof independently. You are repeating your own screwed up math.
LOOK at the below examples.
Look at this link:
Percentage Calculator | Math Easy Solutions

And you are providing further proof THAT YOUR math is screwed up!
View attachment 64434
View attachment 64436

Percentage Calculator | Math Easy Solutions

You are repeating your own screwed up math.


2.5 is 25% more than 2. Clear?
3.0 is 50% more than 2. Clear?
3.5 is 75% more than 2. Clear?
4.0 is 100% more than 2. Clear?
5.0 is 150% more than 2. Clear?
6.0 is 200% more than 2. Got it?

Please, for God's sake, point out a single error I've made here.

 

[edthecynic]

So where are all you idiots that claim Bush spent like a "drunken sailor"?
Were you around after the below events occurred?
Why haven't some of you recognized in 6 years Obama has over spent revenues 400% more then Bush did in 6 years!
View attachment 64299

You are such a damn liar, so typical of the Right.
First of all Bush's first fiscal year was 2002 not 2003 on your chart, and including estimates for 2016 and 2017 does not make 6 years for Obama. So the lying scum use 7 years for Bush as 8 years and 8 years for Obama as 6 years.

Bush spent $20.83 trillion in 8 years and Obama spent $21.25 trillion in 6 less than $1 trillion more and not your lying $6.2 trillion, hardly your lying 400% more.

Recent Federal Spending United States 2002-2015 - Federal State Local Data