% Increase In Debt By President

[The Rabbi]

About 2 trillion of the government spending since Obama became president is interest on the debt accumulated under past presidents.

That's the sort of expenditure you have to factor out in your quest to blame Obama for all of the deficits and debt accumulation over the past 6 years.

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

I just gave you the proof. Don't tell me don't know what interest on the debt is.

Lemme check. Nope, your statements are still not proof.

 

[SwimExpert]

No it isn't. The debt, as a percentage of gdp is the CORRECT way to measure it.

After thinking long and hard I've come to the conclusion that you are unfortunately wrong. The debt as a percentage of the GDP has swung up and down, at times dramatically, all while the hard debt has perpetually increased. It seems to me that debt as a percentage of the GDP is a consequence of multiple factors (most directly the strength of the growth of the economy), and as such is not a "correct" way to measure debt increases. That is not to say that it's not an important factor to be aware of. It seems that the growth of the hard debt, as well as the percentage of the GDP as a measure of debt are both indicators of the health of the economy, though neither is all telling.

 

[SwimExpert]

The only correct way to blame any debt accumulation on any president is to prove that it was the president's fault.

And this is where most partisan hacks want to make a spectacular mess of things. When a Democrat wants to credit Clinton with being the best President in terms of the debt in recent memory, a Republican wants to attribute it to the Republican Congress. But they suddenly sing a different song when talking about Obama or Reagan.

 

[The Rabbi]

No it isn't. The debt, as a percentage of gdp is the CORRECT way to measure it.

After thinking long and hard I've come to the conclusion that you are unfortunately wrong. The debt as a percentage of the GDP has swung up and down, at times dramatically, all while the hard debt has perpetually increased. It seems to me that debt as a percentage of the GDP is a consequence of multiple factors (most directly the strength of the growth of the economy), and as such is not a "correct" way to measure debt increases. That is not to say that it's not an important factor to be aware of. It seems that the growth of the hard debt, as well as the percentage of the GDP as a measure of debt are both indicators of the health of the economy, though neither is all telling.

Let's put it this way.
If you owe 10,000 but earn 5,000 a year are you in good shape or bad? Obviously bad.
If you owe 1M but earn 1M/year are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 10k but own stuff worth 5k are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 1M but own stuff worth 10M are you in good shape or bad?

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is a valuable measure, probably the only valid one.

 

[Nyvin]

No it isn't. The debt, as a percentage of gdp is the CORRECT way to measure it.

After thinking long and hard I've come to the conclusion that you are unfortunately wrong. The debt as a percentage of the GDP has swung up and down, at times dramatically, all while the hard debt has perpetually increased. It seems to me that debt as a percentage of the GDP is a consequence of multiple factors (most directly the strength of the growth of the economy), and as such is not a "correct" way to measure debt increases. That is not to say that it's not an important factor to be aware of. It seems that the growth of the hard debt, as well as the percentage of the GDP as a measure of debt are both indicators of the health of the economy, though neither is all telling.

Let's put it this way.
If you owe 10,000 but earn 5,000 a year are you in good shape or bad? Obviously bad.
If you owe 1M but earn 1M/year are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 10k but own stuff worth 5k are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 1M but own stuff worth 10M are you in good shape or bad?

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is a valuable measure, probably the only valid one.

If the deficit is falling at record levels what more exactly can be done?

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's put it this way.
If you owe 10,000 but earn 5,000 a year are you in good shape or bad? Obviously bad.
If you owe 1M but earn 1M/year are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 10k but own stuff worth 5k are you in good shape or bad?
If you owe 1M but own stuff worth 10M are you in good shape or bad?

Yes, debt as a percentage of GDP is a valuable measure, probably the only valid one.

You are making an ideological argument, nothing more. Are you really prepared to credit Bill Clinton with reducing the debt?

 

[boedicca]

Hey SE,

We know Bill Clinton. Obama is No Bill Clinton.

Bubba worked with Congress to enact welfare reform and he benefited from Reagan's winning the Cold War "dividend". In addition, the economy was booming due to the effects of tax reform, and the Y2K-Telecom-Dotcom bubble. A bit of knowledge of history wouldn't hurt you, bub.

*helpfully*

boe

 

[SwimExpert]

Hey SE,

We know Bill Clinton. Obama is No Bill Clinton.

Bubba worked with Congress to enact welfare reform and he benefited from Reagan's winning the Cold War "dividend". In addition, the economy was booming due to the effects of tax reform, and the Y2K-Telecom-Dotcom bubble. A bit of knowledge of history wouldn't hurt you, bub.

*helpfully*

boe

True, true, true.

What I don't understand is.....why are you bringing up Obama in response to my post? I never said anything about Obama. Obama obsession, much?

 

[blackhawk]

Is there supposed to be some kind of positive or bright side to the amount of debt rung up by each President? Yes some run up less than others but I hardly see that as a positive it's like saying it's better to drown in 75 feet of water than a 100 feet.

 

[SwimExpert]

Is there supposed to be some kind of positive or bright side to the amount of debt rung up by each President? Yes some run up less than others but I hardly see that as a positive it's like saying it's better to drown in 75 feet of water than a 100 feet.

I think that in these modern times of hyper partisan batshittery it's worth looking at the longer term trends and recognizing the inescapable fact that racking up debt is a bi-partisan affair. It's also worth noting that racking up massive debt is a relatively new practice. We cannot blame one party or the other. We need to admit that our modern generations are addicted to debt. The solution is not partisan fighting. The problem is generational more than it is partisan. In past generations there was a mutually embraced responsibility to manage debt reasonably. Even after Roosevelt's massive increase in debt, debt increases afterward remained comparatively small. As you say, that's not "good" necessarily. But it does reflect the fact that people back then did not seem to have the same kind of apathetic attitude toward the debt as exists today.

It's also worth realizing that certain behaviors are associated with increasing debt, and also with increasing tolerance of massive debt. In other words, certain behaviors are akin to gateway drugs. They open the door and make us more willing to engage in new debt accumulating behaviors. Roosevelt's massive entitlement programs clearly rely on massive debt in order to exist.

 

[blackhawk]

Is there supposed to be some kind of positive or bright side to the amount of debt rung up by each President? Yes some run up less than others but I hardly see that as a positive it's like saying it's better to drown in 75 feet of water than a 100 feet.

I think that in these modern times of hyper partisan batshittery it's worth looking at the longer term trends and recognizing the inescapable fact that racking up debt is a bi-partisan affair. It's also worth noting that racking up massive debt is a relatively new practice. We cannot blame one party or the other. We need to admit that our modern generations are addicted to debt. The solution is not partisan fighting. The problem is generational more than it is partisan. In past generations there was a mutually embraced responsibility to manage debt reasonably. Even after Roosevelt's massive increase in debt, debt increases afterward remained comparatively small. As you say, that's not "good" necessarily. But it does reflect the fact that people back then did not seem to have the same kind of apathetic attitude toward the debt as exists today.

It's also worth realizing that certain behaviors are associated with increasing debt, and also with increasing tolerance of massive debt. In other words, certain behaviors are akin to gateway drugs. They open the door and make us more willing to engage in new debt accumulating behaviors. Roosevelt's massive entitlement programs clearly rely on massive debt in order to exist.

I have long known racking up debt was one thing both parties excel at considering the last time this nation was debt free was under Andrew Jackson I believe.

 

[Listening]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Notice the extensive explanation as to why ?

Oh...wait.......

 

[Listening]

The only correct way to blame any debt accumulation on any president is to prove that it was the president's fault.

And this is where most partisan hacks want to make a spectacular mess of things. When a Democrat wants to credit Clinton with being the best President in terms of the debt in recent memory, a Republican wants to attribute it to the Republican Congress. But they suddenly sing a different song when talking about Obama or Reagan.

I would agree with this statement.

I liked and still very much appreciate R.R., but I am not blind to his raising the debt.

However, total debt and deficit can mean a lot of things.

Recall when SS was supposed to be "small" part of your paycheck because there were so many worker for every retiree.

Well, guess what. The number of retirees has gone way up (they live longer) ans so that ratio has dropped.

Context is important.

So while the left screams about he deficit under Bush (and they are right and I agree), they don't get that Obama isn't helping any.

Additionally, they also fight the UE battle by pointing the number of people who are retiring.

Don't they get the explosive mixture this is.

Bush should have been doing much to prepare and he didn't (instead he started those stupid wars and spent on other shit).

Obama has not been any better.

They can point at each other all the while the rest of us listen to the orchestra on the deck as we slip below the waves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President


President Barack Obama: Added $6.103 trillion, a 52% increase

President George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase

President Bill Clinton : Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase

President George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase

President Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase

President Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase

President Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase

President Richard Nixon : Added $121 billion, a 34% increase

President Lyndon B. Johnson : Added $42 billion, a 13% increase

President John F. Kennedy : Added $23 billion, a 8% increase

President Dwight Eisenhower : Added $23 billion, a 9% increase

President Harry Truman : Added $7 billion, a 3% increase

President Franklin D. Roosevelt : Added $236 billion, a 1,048% increase

President Herbert Hoover : Added $6 billion, a 33% increase

President Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26% decline

President Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7% decline

President Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase
.

America Lost 10.2 Trillion Of Wealth In 2008 - Business Insider

From the link:


America Lost $10.2 Trillion In 2008

You'll hear lots of talk about how recessions are caused because people feel poorer or irrationally react to a flood of bad economic news. But the truth is that these depressed feelings are rooted in reality. Americans don't just feel poorer, they are poorer:

• U.S. homeowners lost a cumulative $3.3 trillion in home equity during 2008, according to a report fromZillow. (MortgageWire.)
• One in six homeowners is now underwater on their mortgage.
• The stock market erased $6.9 trillion in shareholder wealth in 2008.

Add together the loss of housing equity of $3.3 trillion and the stock market loss of $6.9 trillion, and you've got a historic loss of wealth of $10.2 trillion.



Read more:America Lost 10.2 Trillion Of Wealth In 2008 - Business Insider

 

[SwimExpert]

Obama has not been any better.

Indeed, Obama is on track to come pretty close to matching increase and contribution by a percentage of total debt. The latest budget calls for a half trillion deficit. A half trillion this coming year, and assuming another half trillion for his final year, Obama will have increased the debt by 59.7% of what it was when he took office, and be responsible for 37.4% of the total debt ($7.1 trillion total). That it is slightly lower than Bush's percentages is no justification for racking up $7.1 trillion of credit card bills.

 

[S.J.]

When your debt is half of your annual income, you need to cut spending. When your debt is MORE than your annual income, you have a problem. We have a problem but our president still spends like a drunken sailor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey SE,

We know Bill Clinton. Obama is No Bill Clinton.

Bubba worked with Congress to enact welfare reform and he benefited from Reagan's winning the Cold War "dividend". In addition, the economy was booming due to the effects of tax reform, and the Y2K-Telecom-Dotcom bubble. A bit of knowledge of history wouldn't hurt you, bub.

*helpfully*

boe

The Cold War dividend? lol, what was that?

Oh, right, I remember, that was what the RWnuts referred to as Clinton gutting the military.

 

[NYcarbineer]

About 2 trillion of the government spending since Obama became president is interest on the debt accumulated under past presidents.

That's the sort of expenditure you have to factor out in your quest to blame Obama for all of the deficits and debt accumulation over the past 6 years.

Id ask for some kind of proof but thats the sort of thing you do when dealing with people who are serious, informed, and committed to legitimate discussion.

Add up the interest on the debt from 2009 to 2014. You've heard of the interest on the debt, right?

I am certain you can supply proof.
Oh wait. No, you can't.

I just gave you the proof. Don't tell me don't know what interest on the debt is.

Lemme check. Nope, your statements are still not proof.

If you don't know the annual interest on the debt figures, why have you posted in the past as if you did?

...other than this being more of your dishonesty...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama has not been any better.

Indeed, Obama is on track to come pretty close to matching increase and contribution by a percentage of total debt. The latest budget calls for a half trillion deficit. A half trillion this coming year, and assuming another half trillion for his final year, Obama will have increased the debt by 59.7% of what it was when he took office, and be responsible for 37.4% of the total debt ($7.1 trillion total). That it is slightly lower than Bush's percentages is no justification for racking up $7.1 trillion of credit card bills.

Why do you keep saying Obama did this and that?

 

[Cassandro]

Obama has not been any better.

Indeed, Obama is on track to come pretty close to matching increase and contribution by a percentage of total debt. The latest budget calls for a half trillion deficit. A half trillion this coming year, and assuming another half trillion for his final year, Obama will have increased the debt by 59.7% of what it was when he took office, and be responsible for 37.4% of the total debt ($7.1 trillion total). That it is slightly lower than Bush's percentages is no justification for racking up $7.1 trillion of credit card bills.

Why do you keep saying Obama did this and that?

Why do you keep blaming Bush for the debt but give Obama a pass? Do you consider it a serious problem or not? If yes, what policies would you support to address it? Isn't it time to put up or shut up?