% Increase In Debt By President

[rdean]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Not exactly. You're drawing a false conclusion by using percentages. The total amount of debt is what you need to go by.

Obama has increased the debt much more than Bush. Bush added $5 trillion in 8 years and so far Obama has added over $8 trillion with two years left to go. No comparison.

Wait until Obama is gone before you start drawing comparisons. Mkay???

He was also handed one of the worst recessions, along with 2 wars, which greatly contributed to the debt.

Sorry ... but he wasn't forced to take the job.

Mkay.

Your non-sequitur does nothing to diminish the impact of the Great Recession plus two wars on the debt.

The great recession was almost completely a fake recession created by Democrats and the state-run media.

Oh ... and Obama has spent more on Obamacare and carting illegal immigrants all over the country than both of those wars cost during the Bush years.

750,000 jobs lost a month a "fake". Wow, good actors.

What about the millions of jobs moved to China from 2001 to 2008 and the tens of thousands of factories closed? Were those fakes too?

 

[mudwhistle]

The only thing Obama can do right is cause division and hate. He fakes one crisis after another to cause whatever his agenda is to become part of the national dialog. He can't fix anything because that's not what he was put in the White House to do.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Not exactly. You're drawing a false conclusion by using percentages. The total amount of debt is what you need to go by.

Obama has increased the debt much more than Bush. Bush added $5 trillion in 8 years and so far Obama has added just under $8 trillion with two years left to go. No comparison.

Wait until Obama is gone before you start drawing comparisons. Mkay???

No. The total only tells one story. Debt to GDP tells another. And growth rate from one administration to another, which is the measurement being discussed on this thread, is a third way to measure it. In 1945, the debt was 248 Billion. Doesn't sound like a lot in today's terms but it was 116% of the 1945 GDP.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

If you want to talk about growth ... then fine. Growth under Bush averaged around 4%. Under Obama it's been either negative growth or less than 2%. Only the last month because of the collapse of energy costs has growth been up to Bush levels. The cost of fuel is way down ... no thanks to Obama ... and that is what is driving growth right now.

I remember not long ago you guys on the left saying low gas prices was an indication of a poor economy. We all know that is BS.

No. You missed the point. Growth rate of the debt itself.

If I, guy no. 1, as a president, start my administration with a debt of 1,000 dollars and end it with a debt of 6,000 dollars, then that is a 600% DEBT growth rate.

If the next guy, guy no. 2, starts with the 6,000 dollars in debt that I left him and adds another 6,000 dollars to the pile, making 12,000 dollars, that is a 100% growth rate for his administration. Same amount added to the debt, lower growth rate because the pile was higher to begin with. If the next guy starts where guy no. 2 ends, at 12,000 dollars, and adds again 6,000 dollars to the pile, making 18,000 dollars, that is now a 50% growth rate for guy no. 3. Same amount added to the pile, but again, the pile was considerable larger to begin with. At the same time, those piles have all been charging interest, since they are debt piles. So, when guy no. 2 starts with 12,000 dollars in debt, he is already paying 12 times as much interest - at least - as guy 1 was at the beginning.

Now, let's put that into perspective.

In general terms, every president up to GWB 43 is "guy no. 1". GWB is "guy no.2. And BHO is "guy no. 3".

It's really that simple

 

[Faun]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Not exactly. You're drawing a false conclusion by using percentages. The total amount of debt is what you need to go by.

Obama has increased the debt much more than Bush. Bush added $5 trillion in 8 years and so far Obama has added just under $8 trillion with two years left to go. No comparison.

Wait until Obama is gone before you start drawing comparisons. Mkay???

No. The total only tells one story. Debt to GDP tells another. And growth rate from one administration to another, which is the measurement being discussed on this thread, is a third way to measure it. In 1945, the debt was 248 Billion. Doesn't sound like a lot in today's terms but it was 116% of the 1945 GDP.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

If you want to talk about growth ... then fine. Growth under Bush averaged around 4%. Under Obama it's been either negative growth or less than 2%. Only the last month because of the collapse of energy costs has growth been up to Bush levels. The cost of fuel is way down ... no thanks to Obama ... and that is what is driving growth right now.

I remember not long ago you guys on the left saying low gas prices was an indication of a poor economy. We all know that is BS.

I sure wish I could just make shit up like you do. But I can't. Here in the real world, real GDP increased under Bush from 12,679.3 after 2000-Q4 to 14,577 after 2008-Q4. That's 14.97% over 32 quarters or an annual average of 1.87%. Who knows where you came up with "around 4%?" That's barely better than Obama's 1.71% average annual growth, only unlike Bush, Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.

 

[Faun]

The great recession was almost completely a fake recession created by Democrats and the state-run media.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's nice, dear.
Obama is the biggest spending president in history. Deal with it.

Nonsense. As a percentage of GDP, spending has decreased under Obama .It increased under Bush. At the very least, that makes Bush worse than Obama.

You arte truly a clueless idiot. That you feel entitled to laugh at others is indicative of your stupidity. You missed the entire point--and I mean the entire point--of the discussion.

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's nice, dear.
Obama is the biggest spending president in history. Deal with it.

Nonsense. As a percentage of GDP, spending has decreased under Obama .It increased under Bush. At the very least, that makes Bush worse than Obama.

You arte truly a clueless idiot. That you feel entitled to laugh at others is indicative of your stupidity. You missed the entire point--and I mean the entire point--of the discussion.

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

You're as dumb as they come, Jester . The recession was not ending when Obama became president. Unemployment increased by more in February, 2009, than any other month...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

... only after Obama passed his stimulus plan did the recession make the turn towards ending.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
Dufus.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is the CORRECT way to measure debt accumulation.

Not exactly. You're drawing a false conclusion by using percentages. The total amount of debt is what you need to go by.

Obama has increased the debt much more than Bush. Bush added $5 trillion in 8 years and so far Obama has added over $8 trillion with two years left to go. No comparison.

Wait until Obama is gone before you start drawing comparisons. Mkay???

He was also handed one of the worst recessions, along with 2 wars, which greatly contributed to the debt.

He was handed a recovery and a victory in a war. Both of which he turned to shit.

And Rabbi re-writes history. The recession hadn't peaked as facts show, but we all know how you disregard facts. If facts don't support those who you follow with a chained ring in your nose, well then those facts don't exist.
Rabbi is boring me, time to go snow-shoeing!

I just dont see any facts here to refute what I wrote. Sorry things can't be like you wanted.
Obama's policies are the most failed since FDR.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Nonsense. As a percentage of GDP, spending has decreased under Obama .It increased under Bush. At the very least, that makes Bush worse than Obama.

You arte truly a clueless idiot. That you feel entitled to laugh at others is indicative of your stupidity. You missed the entire point--and I mean the entire point--of the discussion.

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

And you cannot even spell "economics" correctly, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

Unemployment is indeed a lagging indicator but the one that the public feels the most, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

The meltdown of the stock market exascerbated the recession that was already going on. I should not even need to explain that to you, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

Get some therapy, you stupid ******* putz.

 

[The Rabbi]

You arte truly a clueless idiot. That you feel entitled to laugh at others is indicative of your stupidity. You missed the entire point--and I mean the entire point--of the discussion.

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

And you cannot even spell "economics" correctly, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

Unemployment is indeed a lagging indicator but the one that the public feels the most, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

The meltdown of the stock market exascerbated the recession that was already going on. I should not even need to explain that to you, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

Get some therapy, you stupid ******* putz.

You can't spell sheygetz and I'm supposed to take you seriously? You admit what I write is true. You have no refutation. All you have is fake jew-insults, Heinrich.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.

And you cannot even spell "economics" correctly, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

Unemployment is indeed a lagging indicator but the one that the public feels the most, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

The meltdown of the stock market exascerbated the recession that was already going on. I should not even need to explain that to you, you stupid ******* shaygetz.

Get some therapy, you stupid ******* putz.

You can't spell sheygetz and I'm supposed to take you seriously? You admit what I write is true. You have no refutation. All you have is fake jew-insults, Heinrich.

Unlike with English words, there are many possible spellings for words from Ivrit, you stupid ******* Shaygetz. Now, go **** off.

 

[Faun]

Nonsense. As a percentage of GDP, spending has decreased under Obama .It increased under Bush. At the very least, that makes Bush worse than Obama.

You arte truly a clueless idiot. That you feel entitled to laugh at others is indicative of your stupidity. You missed the entire point--and I mean the entire point--of the discussion.

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

 

[The Rabbi]

You arte truly a clueless idiot. That you feel entitled to laugh at others is indicative of your stupidity. You missed the entire point--and I mean the entire point--of the discussion.

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

It's the kind of laughter that can be mistaken for hysteria, laughing over fools like you, pawn.

 

[Faun]

Your vacuous reply aside, spending as a percentage of GDP is lower now than it was when Obama became president. Pointing out your idiotic claims are bullshit is always relevant in any discussion.

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

More like you don't understand what you wrote. You wrote, "the stock market is not the economy," when in fact, it's a big part of it.

 

[Faun]

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

It's the kind of laughter that can be mistaken for hysteria, laughing over fools like you, pawn.

Nah, there was no hysteria at all. None. The forum jester is simply too rightarded to know any better.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

It's the kind of laughter that can be mistaken for hysteria, laughing over fools like you, pawn.

Nah, there was no hysteria at all. None. The forum jester is simply too rightarded to know any better.

You can't read my post and I'm retarded? Yeah, tell us, asshole.

 

[The Rabbi]

I never claimed otherwise. So you havent pointed out anything other than you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama took over as a recession was ending. Of course GDP was down and spending was up. But GDP to spending is still higher than pre-recession levels. Not that you understand why that's significant.

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

More like you don't understand what you wrote. You wrote, "the stock market is not the economy," when in fact, it's a big part of it.

And you have doubled down on stupid. Congrats!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Poor Rabbi. Facts confuse him and then he gets all upset.
But he has a 1st amendment right to be upset, Goddammit!!
So, let's support his right!!

Rabbi, you have a total right to act like a complete asshole. We support you in your noble endeavour to be the assholiest of them all. Proceed, Governor, proceed.

Now, back to the OP:

% Increase In Debt By President

You see, the title nailed it perfectly.

 

[Faun]

Only on paper and only if you fudge the facts. In terms of jobs and job losses and therefore revenues, tax bases and spending on any level, Obama took office just as the brunt of the recession hit in real terms. Or do you deny that the Stock Market melted down just 4 months before Obama took the oath?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

The stock market is not the economy.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator.
You fail very badly every time you try to debate economis. Maybe because you dont know much.

You are insanely retarded, forum jester . The stock market is not an economic indicator, but it most assuredly is a big part of our economy.

Definition: Consumer spending

Nearly two-thirds of what we spend is for services, mostly real estate and healthcare. Other services include financial services (such as banking, investments, and insurance), cable and internet services, and even services from non-profits.​

I see you are reaching hysteria, unable to read what I wrote.

More like you don't understand what you wrote. You wrote, "the stock market is not the economy," when in fact, it's a big part of it.

And you have doubled down on stupid. Congrats!

They're your idiotic words, jester Don't blame me because you're such an imbecile.