US Debt

[Slade3200]

You don't seem to understand where the money is going... Here is a link that might help

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

During 40s... to war against Nazis.

During Obama time.... War against American people + middle east?

Your point?

Look a the graph and reconsider your batshit insane point you though you made about Obama being the debt shark.

He came into office immediately after one of the worst recessions our country has ever seen. Housing crash, unemployment spike, wall street corruption... on top of that we were at WAR. The vast majority of his spending, by far, was on the military... Like by far. So what specifically are you objecting to or are you limited to looking at pretty colors on generalized charts?

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

 

[Siete]

During 40s... to war against Nazis.

During Obama time.... War against American people + middle east?

Your point?

Look a the graph and reconsider your batshit insane point you though you made about Obama being the debt shark.

He came into office immediately after one of the worst recessions our country has ever seen. Housing crash, unemployment spike, wall street corruption... on top of that we were at WAR. The vast majority of his spending, by far, was on the military... Like by far. So what specifically are you objecting to or are you limited to looking at pretty colors on generalized charts?

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

these RW toads dont know the difference between debt and deficit or how one effects the other. Their credibility is lower than their IQ. You dont expect then to be able to read a chart do you ?

 

[Norman]

Your point?

Look a the graph and reconsider your batshit insane point you though you made about Obama being the debt shark.

He came into office immediately after one of the worst recessions our country has ever seen. Housing crash, unemployment spike, wall street corruption... on top of that we were at WAR. The vast majority of his spending, by far, was on the military... Like by far. So what specifically are you objecting to or are you limited to looking at pretty colors on generalized charts?

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

these RW toads dont know the difference between debt and deficit or how one effects the other. Their credibility is lower than their IQ. You dont expect then to be able to read a chart do you ?

The only thing that you don't seem to grasp is how much Obama spent, and how much he increased the debt. All other talk is irrelevant.

 

[Siete]

Look a the graph and reconsider your batshit insane point you though you made about Obama being the debt shark.

He came into office immediately after one of the worst recessions our country has ever seen. Housing crash, unemployment spike, wall street corruption... on top of that we were at WAR. The vast majority of his spending, by far, was on the military... Like by far. So what specifically are you objecting to or are you limited to looking at pretty colors on generalized charts?

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

these RW toads dont know the difference between debt and deficit or how one effects the other. Their credibility is lower than their IQ. You dont expect then to be able to read a chart do you ?

The only thing that you don't seem to grasp is how much Obama spent, and how much he increased the debt. All other talk is irrelevant.

Obams deficit blossomed to 1.4 trillion dollars in 09 when he took office .. a figure that was responsible for the deepest recession since WWII, and it belonged to 43.. The deficit dropped $1 Trillion dollars during Obamas terms leaving $4 billion that automatically gets added to the National Debt ..

like I said, prove that wrong or bust Clintons ass for a thread or two... the deficit/debt isnt the forte' for RW partisan shitsacks.

 

[Norman]

He came into office immediately after one of the worst recessions our country has ever seen. Housing crash, unemployment spike, wall street corruption... on top of that we were at WAR. The vast majority of his spending, by far, was on the military... Like by far. So what specifically are you objecting to or are you limited to looking at pretty colors on generalized charts?

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

these RW toads dont know the difference between debt and deficit or how one effects the other. Their credibility is lower than their IQ. You dont expect then to be able to read a chart do you ?

The only thing that you don't seem to grasp is how much Obama spent, and how much he increased the debt. All other talk is irrelevant.

Obams deficit blossomed to 1.4 trillion dollars in 09 when he took office .. a figure that was responsible for the deepest recession since WWII, and it belonged to 43.. The deficit dropped $1 Trillion dollars during Obamas terms leaving $4 billion that automatically gets added to the National Debt ..

like I said, prove that wrong or bust Clintons ass for a thread or two... the deficit/debt isnt the forte' for RW partisan shitsacks.

I don't need to prove it wrong, it's irrelevant. He spent the most since WWII and increased the debt more than anyone. Prove that wrong!

 

[my2¢]

I believe in having a surplus when times are good so when a recession hits and tax collections are down the government is still able to live within its means.

 

[my2¢]

Obams deficit blossomed to 1.4 trillion dollars in 09 when he took office .. a figure that was responsible for the deepest recession since WWII, and it belonged to 43.. The deficit dropped $1 Trillion dollars during Obamas terms leaving $4 billion that automatically gets added to the National Debt ..

like I said, prove that wrong or bust Clintons ass for a thread or two... the deficit/debt isnt the forte' for RW partisan shitsacks.

Yes, regarding the '09 federal spending, the budget for it was set in 2008 as the government's Fiscal Year 2009 began on Oct 1, 2008. If we're laying this on administrations then Bush accounted for 96% of 2009's federal spending and Obama accounted for the remaining 4%.
That's my last and only defense of Obama.

 

[Flash]

It depends on which party is president.
When a Republican is president, no amount of debt is too much, there is ALWAYS a rationalization to justify it.

When a Democrat is president ANY debt is too much and is stealing from our grandchildren.

Is that like that asshole Obama saying that Bush's $4 trillion debt was "unpatriotic" but then the sonofabitch ran up $10 trillion of his own debt?

 

[NightFox]

Is that like that asshole Obama saying that Bush's $4 trillion debt was "unpatriotic" but then the sonofabitch ran up $10 trillion of his own debt?

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

 

[Flash]

[QU

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

1. Every budget Obama signed off on.

2. If debt is a bad thing then Obama should not have concurred it. He supported the "mandatory" spending programs so he is responsible.

3. The hypocrisy was Obama bitching about Bush's $4 trillion in debt while running up $10 trillion of his own.

The truth of the matter is that Obama was a big government asshole that tremendously increased the size of government and increased debt and all we got for it was increased poverty, decreased family income, greater income disparity, tremendous debt and dismal economic growth.

You can try to spin that any way the DNC talking points of the day wish but facts are facts.

Obama was a disaster for this country. Crooked Hillary would have been as bad or worse.

 

[NightFox]

[QU

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

LOL, why would I take any responsibility for "the damage done by failed Left economics"? and I never said President Douche Bag "didn't run up the debt" I explained how one would go about calculating something more closely resembling the ACTUAL debt figure that he's responsible for running up.

Apparently you're not bright enough to get my point so allow me to simplify it for you:
The point was how to calculate something approximating REALITY for ANY PRESIDENT instead of just using the figure parroted by the ignorant masses (cumulative operating deficits) because they're too intellectually lazy to actually objectively examine the fiscal and political dynamics.

Alas, I suspect you don't really care about REALITY and instead just enjoy parroting partisan talking points which have no bearing on it.

 

[Flash]

[QU

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

LOL, why would I take any responsibility for "the damage done by failed Left economics"? and I never said President Douche Bag "didn't run up the debt" I explained how one would go about calculating something more closely resembling the ACTUAL debt figure that he's responsible for running up.

Apparently you're not bright enough to get my point so allow me to simplify it for you:
The point was how to calculate something approximating REALITY for ANY PRESIDENT instead of just using the figure parroted by the ignorant masses (cumulative operating deficits) because they're too intellectually lazy to actually objectively examine the fiscal and political dynamics.

Alas, I suspect you don't really care about REALITY and instead just enjoy parroting partisan talking points which have no bearing on it.

I don't play partisan politics. I dumped the Republican Party a long ago when I realized they were nothing more than Democrat Light. They are better than Democrats but that is not saying much because the Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Obama lovers have been blaming his failures on Bush and the Republican for the last eight years and that is despicable. It is really the height of hypocrisy for the Moon Bats to bitch about Republican debt while ignoring massive Democrat debt.

I am against all debt. The government should never be allowed to spend more money than it takes in unless it is a war that requires a significant increase in defense spending in order to deal with a major threat, like we had in 1942.

That asshole Slick Willy did a lot of damage to this country. One of them was refusing to support the Republican Contract for America item to have a balanced budget requirement for the Federal government. That was the one chance we had to prevent Federal debt and the Democrats, aided by a few weak minded Republicans, failed to belly up to the bar when they had the opportunity.

 

[NightFox]

[QU

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

LOL, why would I take any responsibility for "the damage done by failed Left economics"? and I never said President Douche Bag "didn't run up the debt" I explained how one would go about calculating something more closely resembling the ACTUAL debt figure that he's responsible for running up.

Apparently you're not bright enough to get my point so allow me to simplify it for you:
The point was how to calculate something approximating REALITY for ANY PRESIDENT instead of just using the figure parroted by the ignorant masses (cumulative operating deficits) because they're too intellectually lazy to actually objectively examine the fiscal and political dynamics.

Alas, I suspect you don't really care about REALITY and instead just enjoy parroting partisan talking points which have no bearing on it.

I don't play partisan politics. I dumped the Republican Party a long ago when I realized they were nothing more than Democrat Light. They are better than Democrats but that is not saying much because the Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Obama lovers have been blaming his failures on Bush and the Republican for the last eight years and that is despicable. It is really the height of hypocrisy for the Moon Bats to bitch about Republican debt while ignoring massive Democrat debt.

It's a pretty safe bet that when the debt deltas are added up between Bush II and Obama that Bush II is responsible for more debt accumulation than Obama was, after all Bush started with a nominal budget surplus and has the Afghanistan & Iraq wars in his column along with all his idiotic bailouts and entitlement expansion.

Of course that's just a cursory guess since we still don't know all the actual costs of Obama's idiotic policies (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, et al...).

I am against all debt. The government should never be allowed to spend more money than it takes in unless it is a war that requires a significant increase in defense spending in order to deal with a major threat, like we had in 1942.

You do understand that this is impossible under the current economic conditions, right? Our entire financial system is dependent on debt and that includes government debt, if the federal government attempted anything close to balancing the budget by spending reduction in any reasonable time period the whole house of cards would collapse around our ears and if it didn't do it via spending reduction then it would require MASSIVE tax increases on EVERYBODY which would have the same effect.

Face it the current financial situation in the federal government is a giant Ponzi scheme which is inextricably dependent on ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.

That asshole Slick Willy did a lot of damage to this country. One of them was refusing to support the Republican Contract for America item to have a balanced budget requirement for the Federal government. That was the one chance we had to prevent Federal debt and the Democrats, aided by a few weak minded Republicans, failed to belly up to the bar when they had the opportunity.

Well "Slick Willy" did leave office with a nominal federal surplus on the books, of course he doesn't deserve much credit since it was primarily a product of an enormous asset bubble and a somewhat fiscally conservative Congress but at least he managed not to completely fuck it up while it was happening.

 

[Siete]

[QU

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

LOL, why would I take any responsibility for "the damage done by failed Left economics"? and I never said President Douche Bag "didn't run up the debt" I explained how one would go about calculating something more closely resembling the ACTUAL debt figure that he's responsible for running up.

Apparently you're not bright enough to get my point so allow me to simplify it for you:
The point was how to calculate something approximating REALITY for ANY PRESIDENT instead of just using the figure parroted by the ignorant masses (cumulative operating deficits) because they're too intellectually lazy to actually objectively examine the fiscal and political dynamics.

Alas, I suspect you don't really care about REALITY and instead just enjoy parroting partisan talking points which have no bearing on it.

I don't play partisan politics. I dumped the Republican Party a long ago when I realized they were nothing more than Democrat Light. They are better than Democrats but that is not saying much because the Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Obama lovers have been blaming his failures on Bush and the Republican for the last eight years and that is despicable. It is really the height of hypocrisy for the Moon Bats to bitch about Republican debt while ignoring massive Democrat debt.

It's a pretty safe bet that when the debt deltas are added up between Bush II and Obama that Bush II is responsible for more debt accumulation than Obama was, after all Bush started with a nominal budget surplus and has the Afghanistan & Iraq wars in his column along with all his idiotic bailouts and entitlement expansion.

Of course that's just a cursory guess since we still don't know all the actual costs of Obama's idiotic policies (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, et al...).

I am against all debt. The government should never be allowed to spend more money than it takes in unless it is a war that requires a significant increase in defense spending in order to deal with a major threat, like we had in 1942.

You do understand that this is impossible under the current economic conditions, right? Our entire financial system is dependent on debt and that includes government debt, if the federal government attempted anything close to balancing the budget by spending reduction in any reasonable time period the whole house of cards would collapse around our ears and if it didn't do it via spending reduction then it would require MASSIVE tax increases on EVERYBODY which would have the same effect.

Face it the current financial situation in the federal government is a giant Ponzi scheme which is inextricably dependent on ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.

That asshole Slick Willy did a lot of damage to this country. One of them was refusing to support the Republican Contract for America item to have a balanced budget requirement for the Federal government. That was the one chance we had to prevent Federal debt and the Democrats, aided by a few weak minded Republicans, failed to belly up to the bar when they had the opportunity.

Well "Slick Willy" did leave office with a nominal federal surplus on the books, of course he doesn't deserve much credit since it was primarily a product of an enormous asset bubble and a somewhat fiscally conservative Congress but at least he managed not to completely fuck it up while it was happening.

from a percentage standpoint, 43 increased the national debt 101% ... Obama increased it 68%.

partisan hacks find that impossible to believe, but 43 had a much lower starting point after Clinton than Obama did when he followed 43.

Trumps $15 trillion dollar budget proposal, add a wall, tax cuts, military spending x3, and a new healthcare bill, and round and round we go, where she stops, nobody knows ..

 

[NightFox]

[QU

Obama didn't run up $10 trillion of "his own debt", a couple of points that you seem to be missing:
1. It's Congress that appropriates money not the President
2. Every President is saddled with mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service when he/she comes into office that he/she doesn't have any control over.

IMHO If you want a more accurate measure of the debt "ran up" by a particular President you'd have to discount the mandatory spending, existing discretionary spending and debt service which existed prior to his/her taking office and then add the actual costs (extrapolated out) of any new spending measures that President signed into law and subtract any spending reductions (extrapolated out ) that President signed into law then compare that changes in federal revenues during the course of the Administration. Then take that number and adjust it for inflation to a base year.

Wouldn't be perfectly accurate but it would be far closer to reality than just looking at the cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given Administration because every Administration has a lot of spending it inherits as well as a baseline of revenue.

In a nutshell : look at the spending the President actually adds (or reduces) and then compare that to the increase or decrease in revenues during that Presidents tenure, the difference would be the debt (or surplus), then extrapolate out and add any debt service costs for debt added and that would be closer to what that President is directly responsible for.

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

LOL, why would I take any responsibility for "the damage done by failed Left economics"? and I never said President Douche Bag "didn't run up the debt" I explained how one would go about calculating something more closely resembling the ACTUAL debt figure that he's responsible for running up.

Apparently you're not bright enough to get my point so allow me to simplify it for you:
The point was how to calculate something approximating REALITY for ANY PRESIDENT instead of just using the figure parroted by the ignorant masses (cumulative operating deficits) because they're too intellectually lazy to actually objectively examine the fiscal and political dynamics.

Alas, I suspect you don't really care about REALITY and instead just enjoy parroting partisan talking points which have no bearing on it.

I don't play partisan politics. I dumped the Republican Party a long ago when I realized they were nothing more than Democrat Light. They are better than Democrats but that is not saying much because the Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Obama lovers have been blaming his failures on Bush and the Republican for the last eight years and that is despicable. It is really the height of hypocrisy for the Moon Bats to bitch about Republican debt while ignoring massive Democrat debt.

It's a pretty safe bet that when the debt deltas are added up between Bush II and Obama that Bush II is responsible for more debt accumulation than Obama was, after all Bush started with a nominal budget surplus and has the Afghanistan & Iraq wars in his column along with all his idiotic bailouts and entitlement expansion.

Of course that's just a cursory guess since we still don't know all the actual costs of Obama's idiotic policies (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, et al...).

I am against all debt. The government should never be allowed to spend more money than it takes in unless it is a war that requires a significant increase in defense spending in order to deal with a major threat, like we had in 1942.

You do understand that this is impossible under the current economic conditions, right? Our entire financial system is dependent on debt and that includes government debt, if the federal government attempted anything close to balancing the budget by spending reduction in any reasonable time period the whole house of cards would collapse around our ears and if it didn't do it via spending reduction then it would require MASSIVE tax increases on EVERYBODY which would have the same effect.

Face it the current financial situation in the federal government is a giant Ponzi scheme which is inextricably dependent on ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.

That asshole Slick Willy did a lot of damage to this country. One of them was refusing to support the Republican Contract for America item to have a balanced budget requirement for the Federal government. That was the one chance we had to prevent Federal debt and the Democrats, aided by a few weak minded Republicans, failed to belly up to the bar when they had the opportunity.

Well "Slick Willy" did leave office with a nominal federal surplus on the books, of course he doesn't deserve much credit since it was primarily a product of an enormous asset bubble and a somewhat fiscally conservative Congress but at least he managed not to completely fuck it up while it was happening.

from a percentage standpoint, 43 increased the national debt 101% ... Obama increased it 68%.

What inputs did you use to derive those percentages?

 

[Siete]

The sad thing is that you stupiud hypocritical Moon Bats actually believe that Obama didn't run up the debt. That is the delusion that you dumbshits have. You never take responsibility for the damage done by failed Left economics.

LOL, why would I take any responsibility for "the damage done by failed Left economics"? and I never said President Douche Bag "didn't run up the debt" I explained how one would go about calculating something more closely resembling the ACTUAL debt figure that he's responsible for running up.

Apparently you're not bright enough to get my point so allow me to simplify it for you:
The point was how to calculate something approximating REALITY for ANY PRESIDENT instead of just using the figure parroted by the ignorant masses (cumulative operating deficits) because they're too intellectually lazy to actually objectively examine the fiscal and political dynamics.

Alas, I suspect you don't really care about REALITY and instead just enjoy parroting partisan talking points which have no bearing on it.

I don't play partisan politics. I dumped the Republican Party a long ago when I realized they were nothing more than Democrat Light. They are better than Democrats but that is not saying much because the Democrats set such a low bar.

The filthy ass Obama lovers have been blaming his failures on Bush and the Republican for the last eight years and that is despicable. It is really the height of hypocrisy for the Moon Bats to bitch about Republican debt while ignoring massive Democrat debt.

It's a pretty safe bet that when the debt deltas are added up between Bush II and Obama that Bush II is responsible for more debt accumulation than Obama was, after all Bush started with a nominal budget surplus and has the Afghanistan & Iraq wars in his column along with all his idiotic bailouts and entitlement expansion.

Of course that's just a cursory guess since we still don't know all the actual costs of Obama's idiotic policies (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, et al...).

I am against all debt. The government should never be allowed to spend more money than it takes in unless it is a war that requires a significant increase in defense spending in order to deal with a major threat, like we had in 1942.

You do understand that this is impossible under the current economic conditions, right? Our entire financial system is dependent on debt and that includes government debt, if the federal government attempted anything close to balancing the budget by spending reduction in any reasonable time period the whole house of cards would collapse around our ears and if it didn't do it via spending reduction then it would require MASSIVE tax increases on EVERYBODY which would have the same effect.

Face it the current financial situation in the federal government is a giant Ponzi scheme which is inextricably dependent on ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.

That asshole Slick Willy did a lot of damage to this country. One of them was refusing to support the Republican Contract for America item to have a balanced budget requirement for the Federal government. That was the one chance we had to prevent Federal debt and the Democrats, aided by a few weak minded Republicans, failed to belly up to the bar when they had the opportunity.

Well "Slick Willy" did leave office with a nominal federal surplus on the books, of course he doesn't deserve much credit since it was primarily a product of an enormous asset bubble and a somewhat fiscally conservative Congress but at least he managed not to completely fuck it up while it was happening.

from a percentage standpoint, 43 increased the national debt 101% ... Obama increased it 68%.

What inputs did you use to derive those percentages?

the emperical data on record ..

dollar wise, Obama out spent 43...

Reagan raised the debt 189% ... mostly from cold war spending, and tax cuts...

 

[Siete]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

 

[NightFox]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

 

[Siete]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

then you should be the one calculating the debt and not the Treasury department, apparently you are much smarter than their computers and methods for data input.

 

[Slade3200]

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

these RW toads dont know the difference between debt and deficit or how one effects the other. Their credibility is lower than their IQ. You dont expect then to be able to read a chart do you ?

The only thing that you don't seem to grasp is how much Obama spent, and how much he increased the debt. All other talk is irrelevant.

Obams deficit blossomed to 1.4 trillion dollars in 09 when he took office .. a figure that was responsible for the deepest recession since WWII, and it belonged to 43.. The deficit dropped $1 Trillion dollars during Obamas terms leaving $4 billion that automatically gets added to the National Debt ..

like I said, prove that wrong or bust Clintons ass for a thread or two... the deficit/debt isnt the forte' for RW partisan shitsacks.

I don't need to prove it wrong, it's irrelevant. He spent the most since WWII and increased the debt more than anyone. Prove that wrong!

I don't need to prove that wrong. I am proving a different point which is obviously over your head.