Total US Debt Rises Over $18 Trillion; Up 70% Under Barack Obama

[80zephyr]

PAYGO - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

PAYGO was working. GW Bush and the GOP Congress chose to abandon it.

No, paygo wasn't "working". If you want it to work, expect a 66% across the board tax increase.

If "paygo" worked, Obama and the Dem congress could have implemented it, why didn't they?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

[
Using that "logic" a president 200 hundred years ago could have added 900 bucks to a 100 dollar debt and would look like the worst spender in history.

That would be correct, as a percentage. You know, like in the OP.

Umm, no. The percentage in the OP is correct. The percentage you are using is not correct, mathematically.

You simply cannot compare a trillions "100 percent" to a billions "100 percent" like some here are trying to do.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

In progtard lexicon that means the debt is decreasing

No, the debt is increasing. The deficit is decreasing.

To what? A half trillion a year? Is that now the "new normal"? The CBO doesn't think so. And our "brave" politicians will continue to kick the can down the road until our collapse.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[
Using that "logic" a president 200 hundred years ago could have added 900 bucks to a 100 dollar debt and would look like the worst spender in history.

That would be correct, as a percentage. You know, like in the OP.

Umm, no. The percentage in the OP is correct. The percentage you are using is not correct, mathematically.

You simply cannot compare a trillions "100 percent" to a billions "100 percent" like some here are trying to do.

Oh but you can, and we do. 50% higher is always 50% higher. 50% lower is always 50% lower. It's math.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In progtard lexicon that means the debt is decreasing

No, the debt is increasing. The deficit is decreasing.

To what? A half trillion a year? Is that now the "new normal"? The CBO doesn't think so. And our "brave" politicians will continue to kick the can down the road until our collapse.

Yep. It's a house of cards, always has been, always will be. That money in your pocket has value only because you and the rest of the world believes a lie, which is that it does have value. Is you lose the faith the game is up. That's happened before and will happen again. No one can change that.

 

[80zephyr]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Using this "logic" the next president will be even better. Even as we go bankrupt.

Mark

Percentages are the Rational, meaning Logical, also in this case meaning Fair way to make Valid comparisons, not something the little Partisans want to do..

No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.

If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:

Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.

So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.

The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.

Do you agree with this set of figures as well?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

[
Using that "logic" a president 200 hundred years ago could have added 900 bucks to a 100 dollar debt and would look like the worst spender in history.

That would be correct, as a percentage. You know, like in the OP.

Umm, no. The percentage in the OP is correct. The percentage you are using is not correct, mathematically.

You simply cannot compare a trillions "100 percent" to a billions "100 percent" like some here are trying to do.

Oh but you can, and we do. 50% higher is always 50% higher. 50% lower is always 50% lower. It's math.

Yes, it is math. Convoluted math. When math has no consistent basis point, the "math" compares...nothing.

It is sleigh of hand, a magicians trick to fool those who really don't understand math.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

In progtard lexicon that means the debt is decreasing

No, the debt is increasing. The deficit is decreasing.

To what? A half trillion a year? Is that now the "new normal"? The CBO doesn't think so. And our "brave" politicians will continue to kick the can down the road until our collapse.

Yep. It's a house of cards, always has been, always will be. That money in your pocket has value only because you and the rest of the world believes a lie, which is that it does have value. Is you lose the faith the game is up. That's happened before and will happen again. No one can change that.

Then why are we defending "our" side? This is what I really don't understand about the hatred of the tea parties. They are the only ones who want to get back to fiscal responsibility, and both parties hate them for it.

Mark

 

[edthecynic]

Should hit 20 trillion by the time he leaves office unless there are some major changes.

And Dems will use public school math to show how of 20 Trillion Obama was only responsible for 6 of it (because of Bush's recession/depression) and Bush created the other 14 trillion and part of Obama's deficit.

First of all, it would be created by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II which is why it is called the GOP National Debt. And including the interest on the debt the GOP racked up it would be over $14 trillion belonging to the Republican Party.

 

[edthecynic]

O has already spent more than every president. That doesn't help your chart.

That's a GOP scripted lie parroted only by foolish suckers.

 

[80zephyr]

Should hit 20 trillion by the time he leaves office unless there are some major changes.

And Dems will use public school math to show how of 20 Trillion Obama was only responsible for 6 of it (because of Bush's recession/depression) and Bush created the other 14 trillion and part of Obama's deficit.

First of all, it would be created by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II which is why it is called the GOP National Debt. And including the interest on the debt the GOP racked up it would be over $14 trillion belonging to the Republican Party.

So, the GOP is totally responsible for our national debt?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

O has already spent more than every president. That doesn't help your chart.

That's a GOP scripted lie parroted only by foolish suckers.

The GOP cannot script math.

Mark

 

[edthecynic]

And everyone will go about their continuing to not care.

Total US Debt Rises Over 18 Trillion Up 70 Under Barack Obama Zero Hedge

ZeroHedge, now there is a reliable source for you, NOT!

Let's see The GOP National Debt was $5,807,463,412,200.06 when Bush started and $11,909,829,003,511.75 -$203 billion when he left. An increase of $5.9 trillion. There has been another $1.9 trillion in interest on the $11.7 trillion GOP National Debt for a GOP total National Debt of $13.6 trillion, not counting Bush policy carry-overs like his 2 wars and the continued care of Bush's maimed vets. Obama starts at $13.6 trillion and is at $18,005,549,328,561.45 today including interest on his share of the national debt, an increase of $4.4 trillion or 24% of the total debt.

Sooo really Obama is runninga surplus... if it were not for Bush... lol, you can only make this chit up.

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton that Bush quickly turned into perpetual deficits after he stole the presidency. Remember the on;y thing that changes was the president, the Congress was still controlled by the GOP.

 

[edthecynic]

Should hit 20 trillion by the time he leaves office unless there are some major changes.

And Dems will use public school math to show how of 20 Trillion Obama was only responsible for 6 of it (because of Bush's recession/depression) and Bush created the other 14 trillion and part of Obama's deficit.

First of all, it would be created by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II which is why it is called the GOP National Debt. And including the interest on the debt the GOP racked up it would be over $14 trillion belonging to the Republican Party.

So, the GOP is totally responsible for our national debt?

Mark

As I previously pointed out, the GOP own 75% of our current national debt.

 

[edthecynic]

O has already spent more than every president. That doesn't help your chart.

That's a GOP scripted lie parroted only by foolish suckers.

The GOP cannot script math.

Mark

Except the math defies the GOP scripted lie!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[blackhawk]

Haven't you guys figured out yet in the eyes of the left Obama is the God who walks among us mere mortals and can do no wrong?

 

[edthecynic]

And everyone will go about their continuing to not care.

Total US Debt Rises Over 18 Trillion Up 70 Under Barack Obama Zero Hedge

ZeroHedge, now there is a reliable source for you, NOT!

Let's see The GOP National Debt was $5,807,463,412,200.06 when Bush started and $11,909,829,003,511.75 -$203 billion when he left. An increase of $5.9 trillion. There has been another $1.9 trillion in interest on the $11.7 trillion GOP National Debt for a GOP total National Debt of $13.6 trillion, not counting Bush policy carry-overs like his 2 wars and the continued care of Bush's maimed vets. Obama starts at $13.6 trillion and is at $18,005,549,328,561.45 today including interest on his share of the national debt, an increase of $4.4 trillion or 24% of the total debt.

Sorry, not the way it works. If you want to go that route, then paying veterans benefits to WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam vets should all be allocated the the presidents in power at the time of these conflicts.

I also like how you allocated the entire interest on the debt to the GOP.

Mark

I know that math is "Fuzzy" to the Right, but I only allotted $375 billion/year in interest to the GOP, the balance of the $400+ billion/year in interest to Obama.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But but Reagan!

Yep...

Obama's needs to be updated.

Using this "logic" the next president will be even better. Even as we go bankrupt.

Mark

Percentages are the Rational, meaning Logical, also in this case meaning Fair way to make Valid comparisons, not something the little Partisans want to do..

No, they are not. You simply cannot use percentages to compare when you use different bases for the comparison.

If you think this is "logical", lets use percentages this way:

Reagan added 1.86 trillion to our debt. Obama to date has added 6.103 trillion.

So, in comparing presidents, Obama has increased our debt by over 228% of what Reagan did.

The math is right, and this time it makes Obama look like the bad guy.

Do you agree with this set of figures as well?

Mark

Tell you what, since you seem so dedicated to this, you take all the debt under Reagan, adjusted for inflation, and all under Obama, adjusted as well, and then post them side by side. But it will never change the math of who increased the national debt the most as a percentage.

And keep this in mind:

$1.00 in 1980 had the same buying power as $3.04 in 2014.
Annual inflation over this period was 3.32%.

Have fun...

 

[edthecynic]

There were surpluses as far as the eye can see under Clinton.

No, there weren't and that's been debunked a thousand times over since his administration. There were lower budget deficits (although a lot of that was borrowed from intergovernmental holdings), but there was never a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Sorry, but that SAME "debunking" also debunks the myth of Bush's $161 billion deficit before the Dems took over Congress. The GOP National Debt increased $500 billion from that $161 billion "deficit." So the Clinton surplus is as real as the Bush $161 deficit, you can't have it both ways no matter how much you try.