| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
BlueNote
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 301
My Charts
|
| #111 | Posted: 04/05/2012 04:15 | Post subject: |
 |
| Romanelli wrote: |
Since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, here are the debt increase percentages for each President during their terms in office:
Reagan: Up 189%
Bush 2: Up 89%
Bush 1: Up 55.6%
Carter: Up 42%
Obama: Up 41%
Clinton: Up 36%
The rate of debt growth in the 3 years Obama has been in office has decreased from the 16% under Bush in 2008 to 15% in 2009, 14% in 2010, and 8% in 2011. |
Where did you get your numbers? The numbers I have show:
Carter: 9.32% (per year)
Reagan: 14.18%
Bush: 11.62%
Clinton: 3.99%
Bush: 8.03%
Obama: 15.21%
If you look at the debt as the percentage increase per year, to surpass 2010 (at 12.5%) you have to go back to 1986.
As percentage of GDP, 2009-2011 was the highest increase since 1945, i.e. WWII.
The point is, Obama has spent like crazy. So did Bush II. But there are important differences in the kind of spending. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
paladisiac
on the frontlines in the war on music
Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 2,049
Gender: Male
Location: Denver
My Charts
|
| #112 | Posted: 04/06/2012 21:45 | Post subject: |
|
Facts about the national debt: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo...stdebt.htm .
It started exploding under Reagan. Bush continued the trend. Clinton subdued the debt growth before it exploded again under Bush2 to nearly $12 trillion. The interest on that alone is in the hundreds of billions -- it's a rolling interest, but that's about $550 billion a year.
Put in that perspective, the President is doing ok cleaning up the many inherited messes ... and put in that perspective, i don't think any President in our lifetime is going to put a major dent in the national debt.
| BlueNote wrote: | Where did you get your numbers? The numbers I have show:
Carter: 9.32% (per year)
Reagan: 14.18%
Bush: 11.62%
Clinton: 3.99%
Bush: 8.03%
Obama: 15.21%
If you look at the debt as the percentage increase per year, to surpass 2010 (at 12.5%) you have to go back to 1986.
As percentage of GDP, 2009-2011 was the highest increase since 1945, i.e. WWII.
The point is, Obama has spent like crazy. So did Bush II. But there are important differences in the kind of spending. |
_________________
i'm always listening to music |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlueNote
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 301
My Charts
|
| #113 | Posted: 04/07/2012 02:26 | Post subject: |
|
| paladisiac wrote: | | Put in that perspective, the President is doing ok cleaning up the many inherited messes |
Maybe you could point me to the thing (or things) Obama has done to clean up the debt? It seems to me he has doubled down on a bad situation. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bork
Executive Hillbilly
Joined: 07 Dec 2009
Posts: 2,213
Location: Vinson Mountain, GA
My Charts
|
| #114 | Posted: 04/08/2012 13:10 | Post subject: |
|
Generally in American politics the right wing will blame everything on the left and the left wing will blame everything on the right and even otherwise intelligent people have a tendency to bring this argumentation to levels reminiscent of a drunken stupor.
That said, blaming Obama for the amount of debt the country is in is nothing but ridiculous. He inherited years of (mostly) right-wing budget mismanagement in the name of lowering taxes and he did so in the worst economic times since the great depression. Blaming Obama for failing to deliver a plan for how to get back on track is fair though. That should be very near the top of his priorities and we have yet to see it.
Going forward I have a hard time swallowing that "anything but Obama" is what we need to get our check book balanced. If we look at it historically, since WWII the left and the moderate right have generally been pretty good at keeping the budget in order. The radical right has been god-awful, with Reagan by no comparison the worst. Both the remaining alternatives to Obama belong to the radical right, and their recipe for getting the budget back in order is more of what Reagan did. That's not going to work.
Sadly we are left with only bad choices for the economy this fall, but I dare say Obama is nowhere near the worst of those choices. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rsongster
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 11
My Charts
|
| #115 | Posted: 04/08/2012 13:29 | Post subject: |
|
| Blaming Obama for our economic problems is like blaming an emergency room doctor for not being able to save a victim who has been shot in the chest 6 times. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
paladisiac
on the frontlines in the war on music
Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 2,049
Gender: Male
Location: Denver
My Charts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlueNote
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 301
My Charts
|
| #117 | Posted: 04/10/2012 03:45 | Post subject: |
|
That's one way to look at Obama's economic policy, but the discussion is about the debt. The Stimulus can hardly be argued to have done anything to reduce the debt. In fact, it intentionally does the opposite. The Stimulus' logic is based on Keynesian economics, relying on deficit spending and loose monetary policy to increase employment.
Based on the results of The Stimulus, it can only be assessed as a failure (or an underwhelming success, if you want to be kind). Of course, you might argue that the economy would have been worse if The Stimulus hadn't happened. I can as easily argue that the economy would have been better without The Stimulus. Neither of will have facts, only theory to back our arguments.
What cannot be argued sanely is that The Stimulus had anything to do with reducing the debt (the question at issue). It consciously increased it.
The only thing I know of that Obama has done to reduce the debt (but not the deficit, mind) is print money. This reduces the value of the debt by inflating the money supply, but it is a risky if not irresponsible maneuver. See also: QE I, II, and III. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlueNote
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 301
My Charts
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paladisiac
on the frontlines in the war on music
Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 2,049
Gender: Male
Location: Denver
My Charts
|
| #119 | Posted: 04/10/2012 11:49 | Post subject: |
|
i selected a politically-neutral site. You did not.
Quoting from the article you mention:
| Quote: |
...according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.
The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst ...
|
That article also reaffirms the GOP attack on Medicare:
| Quote: |
“If one asserts that this law extends the solvency of Medicare, then one is affirming that this law adds to the deficit. ...
"
|
The article also goes on to say that Medicare funds could've been exhausted as early as 2017. But the ACA extended its lifeline to approx. 2029.
More change is necessary, obviously.
_________________
i'm always listening to music |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlueNote
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 301
My Charts
|
| #120 | Posted: 04/10/2012 20:36 | Post subject: |
|
I thought we were having a debate about the debt. You wrote, "So trying to blame Obama for an increase in debt holds no merit." I believe I have shown that blaming Obama for increasing the debt has plenty of merit. He has not only increased the debt substantially, he has made no efforts (aside from inflating the money supply) to decrease the debt.
I linked to that article because it was timely and pertinent to the discussion of the debt. You may disagree with The Washington Post's editorial stance, but unless you are prepared to dispute the facts the article presents, the way the editorial board leans is not pertinent to the discussion.
So, let's stay on the subject of the debt. If you want to debate the merits of Obama Care or other aspects of Obama's economic policy we can do that. I'm believe Naples has started a thread on nearly every political subject. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Shop at your favourite store
