Debate this factoid about the public debt:

1. 78

   crankaliciousposted 13 years ago

   Here's an interesting factoid about how much the last five presidents have increased the public debt:
   
   Ronald Reagan: 189%
   George Bush: 55%
   Bill Clinton: 37%
   George W. Bush: 115%
   Barack Obama: 16%
   
   Now, as the debt grows, it should be harder to increase it as a percentage. In other words, Obama's 16% increase may be more in dollars than George Bush's 55%, for instance. However, it's also harder to stop spending as a result of a preceding president's debt increase. (information source: Treasury Dept.)
   
   So, discuss...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The most important part of that is that both parties are screwing us over.
      
      Ron Paul 2012.

      replyreport
   2. 48

      zarnybarnyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, these numbers really surprise me!

      replyreport
   3. 57

      BillWest165posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Nice try. Your comparing 8 years of Reagon and Bush to 1 year of Obama. And your not taking in to account debt as a % of GDP which is much higher with Obama. From another site:
      "Just for reference, Reagan increased total U.S. debt by 1.3 trillion inflation adjusted over eight years. Big increase from previous years but the graph showing Obama increasing by 35% does not take in to account that is a 4.01 trillion dollar increase in 2yrs. Bush Jr increased debt from 5.8 to 10.5 trillion in 8yrs. Increase of 4.7 trillion. Obama has now increased debt to 14.7 trillion which is 4.2 trillion increased growth of debt. That is almost 4 times the rate of Bush jr and 15 times the increase of Reagan per year.
      
      I’m not saying Bush or Reagan did a great job. I’m simply putting numbers in to context. Deficit under Reagan was never more than 6% of GDP, even with the high 10.5% unemployment in 1983 but current deficit is 12% of GDP and debt is 96% of GDP."

      replyreport
      1. 78

         crankaliciousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I mentioned that Obama's number was probably bigger, but as government grows, momentum becomes a factor in spending and it becomes much harder to reverse the trend. If, as a politician, you go in slashing programs to try to return to the level of your predecessor's predecessor, you will lose your job and dramatically damage the economy because the economy is so dependent on that spending, so while the graph hides part of the truth, it's important to see that none of these presidents did very much to curb spending.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's just nonsense! Those of you that think the economy is dependent upon government spending are ignoring the fact that the government has NO MONEY and creates NO WEALTH but is a consumer of wealth! Before government can buy anything or hire anyone it first has to TAKE the money to do so away from somebody else and out of the economy! Cutting government allows people to keep their money to spend, save and invest it as they wish which actually grows wealth!
            
            The government is NOT the economy, not yet anyway, and if it ever becomes the economy we will become a third world nation under oppressive rule.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               crankaliciousposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Lady love,
               
               Your hyperbolic response neither addresses anything anyone said, provides no facts, and also doesn't address the chart.
               
               "Cutting government allows people to keep their money..."
               
               The point of the chart is that no president in the last 30 years has done that. They've all increased the public debt.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I was addressing your claim:
                  
                  " If, as a politician, you go in slashing programs to try to return to the level of your predecessor's predecessor, you will lose your job and dramatically damage the economy because the economy is so dependent on that spending,"
                  
                  I stand by my claim that statement is erroneous. Other than that you are correct no one has cut public debt and they can't because entitlement growth is mandatory by law and continues to take up a greater percentage of the federal budget.

                  replyreport
2. 85

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   I'm not surprised. Republicans are led by ideology. They spend emotionally and for power. Democrats are pragmatic. They care about the big picture.
   And Obama is the most sensible president I've ever been around to see.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Thus, the GOP wants a government just large enough to protect the interest of their corporate cronies around the word, send American youth to their death in pursuit of their corporate greed, and large enough to cover their gambling losses on the global market. But they want that same government to be too small to protect the American people from contaminated food, drugs, and water, and much too small to protect us from corporate manipulation, and safety, health, and fairness issues on the job – and they certainly want it too small to administer programs like Social Security and Medicare.
      
      This is a totally un-American and ruthless bunch.
      Take a moment to consider the ramifications of this pledge to never raise taxes. That permanently protects the rich from having to pay their fair share of any burden, regardless of the national emergency.
      
      We currently see this strategy at work in congress as we speak. Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is refusing disaster relief funding for states hit by Hurricane Irene without being offset with spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.
      
      This episode betrays much about the GOP mindset. First and foremost, it clearly demonstrates that the GOP leadership couldn’t care less about the welfare of the American people. Secondly, it clearly illustrates their gross hypocrisy. They claim that they’re so concerned over the national debt that they’re willing to deny disaster relief to Americans suffering the ravages of a hurricane, yet, they’re not so concerned that it prevents them from giving trillions of dollars away to the top 2% of the population.
      
      So by demonstrated behavior, the GOP has betrayed their belief that subsidizing the wealth of the wealthy should take priority over relieving the suffering of poor and middle-class Americans – and these people are asking us to turn the government over to them? Please.
      
      But Mr. President, the facts presented above are exactly why it’s so important that you refrain from confronting your base with terms and phrases like compromise, bipartisanship, and shared sacrifice for the rest of your days in office. Your base is sick to death of hearing them, because we’re not stupid, and we understand that the American people have been compromised to the hilt, and engaging in bipartisanship with the GOP is just another word for consorting with the enemy of American democracy."
      
      Ooooh! OUCH! My man Eric L Wattree!!!

      replyreport