Who increased the debt?

This should stir the pot.

25 Responses

  1. Its been all downhill since the fevered Alzheimer-ed mind of Reagan. I don’t know what excuses Dumbya and his father can use, other than stupidity. Supply-side voodoo economics can never work.

  2. Thats the dumbest graph I have ever seen. Completely meaningless.

    Why? Because those numbers are all relative to the debt existing when they take office. Your graph is meaningless in every way except in stirring the pot.

    Show it as a percentage of GDP, or something else that shifts and changes to reflect the times. Otherwise, like I said, it’s pretty meaningless. And where did the treasury get these numbers anyway, they don’t seem to be anything close to anything else I can find, for anyone.

    They have some awful fuzzy math here for sure. For all of them, particularly with Reagan, but all so with all the rest.

  3. also*………. Derp!

  4. Thats much closer to what I know and what I found. This is simply a partisan chart containing no useful or thought provoking information. Both sides do it, this one is particularly bad, they have somehow even vastly overstated Obamas Debt. I suspect 3 year olds were involved.

    With that said, even if this were true, It would show Obama in a shitty light. This would be based on 2 years data, for him, as opposed to 8 for Bush. 86% in two years compared to 55% in 8.

    If the Debt was your only issue, and it were between Obama and Bush, I’d say you would have to vote for Bushy. That is using this chart.

    Did you think this was some kind of home run Michael? Bob? Its just bad data.

  5. Obama’s debt is for fixing Dumbya’s hundreds of major fuckups

  6. Bush derangement syndrome! Oh no!


  7. If everyone is going to go on and on about how much the President has increased the debt so far in his term, it’s only fair to give perspective. This chart does that – and it doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t.

  8. Hey, I ran my own numbers and I can’t come close to any of those figures. This chart was made to give the impression that Reagan spent a shit ton of money, and he did. However, 35% (Obamas “increase”) of 10.4 trillion is more than Reagan spent in four years, and 35% of 10.4T is what this chart alleges Obama has spent (debt spending).

    When I ran the numbers, I could manage to get Obama to 33%, but only by mixing spending figures incorrectly.

    All I’m saying is that this graph doesn’t even do what it alleges to, for any of the presidents, much less Reagan, they can’t even figure it for Obama.

    Plus, like I said, these figures this graph gives are increases relative to the debt we had when they took office. Because Bush was a big government republican, he ratcheted up the debt so high, that Obamas percentage is artificially low, so you actually need to know how much debt he started with to find out what that 35% is supposed to represent.

    Again, Obama’s figure is too high, so is Reagan’s and the others.

  9. 8 years*.

  10. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that this chart is done in percentages over given years doesn’t understand the point of the chart. If someone is stupid enough to think that a percentage of the debt from the 80’s equals the same as a percentage of the debt from today when translated into raw, inflation adjusted numbers, then let them be. They may crash into you as they run around in circles trying to catch their own tail.

  11. Fine, but you are still left with the fact that this graph doesn’t reflect reality and that even in inflation adjusted dollars Regan spent only slightly more than Obama has so far.

    Regan didn’t increase it by 189%, and Obama hasn’t increased it by 35%.

  12. It was around $700 billion when Reagan took office and then it was around $2.5 trillion when he left. The numbers are actually higher than this chart purports.

  13. Wong.

  14. As Tim Martin’s link shows, Republican Presidents still come off looking awful compared to sober, sensible Bill Clinton… even expressed in terms of GDP, as requested.

    Put simply, the GOP can never claim to be the party of “fiscal responsibility” as long as they pursue their deranged, proven failure of a free-market theory called “supply side economics.” It NEVER works, and each time it fails they just redouble their commitment to it. That sort of fanatical dementia should never be trusted with the nation’s purse strings.

  15. You’re just talking complete shit. If you think republican deficits are a result of bottom up economics, than you are out of your mind. Particularly where most policies would result in little or no spending per say. So either you are being intentionally dishonest or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    No offense, but that’s the way it is.

    Republican deficits come from cutting taxes but not spending, and spending on stupid shit.

    Democratic deficits come from raising taxes and spending more than you can raise.

    At least in general. Neither one has any damn thing to do with economic policy, it has to do with intestinal fortitude and political will. You have also completely bypassed or forgotten about the fact that Regan had a democratic congress and Clinton a republican one for most of the time. In short, both parties are just as bad in almost every way.

    Don’t try and get all hyper partisan on this subject, because even Clinton was a big spender before the Republicans took congress and with a Republican congress Reagan would have spent even more. Kind of like Obama the first two years, almost a blank check. Now he’s attempting to be Mr. Fiscal Responsibility and failing, but he might be able to pull it off like Clinton did.

  16. Complete bullshit, Nate.

    The deficit is mostly due to Dumbya’s complete and utter fuckup of Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The rest us from the Republucan voodoo economics which fails miserably.

    That’s the way it is.

  17. You must be confused. The deficit we have today is 0% related to Bush. A good part of the debt is partly his fault, but not the yearly deficit.

    Of course there is blame to go to the democrats that held the senate and than the house in the last part of his presidency. Same as Part of the credit goes to the republicans for the balanced budget during Clinton’s reign.

    It really is shocking that you hate on bottom up economics while not recognizing that the top down approach you seem to favor has never been effective under any circumstances, despite having a longer tenure.

  18. What are you babbling about? Top down, bottom up.

    Voodoo Reaganomics is based on supply-side which is nonsense.

    People have demands/needs and companies sell to those needs. A company can supply-side a widget but if there is no need then it won’t sell.

  19. Sigh… It’s just not worth it.

  20. True, there’s really no hope of defending an obvious and proven failure like supply-side economics.

    So why does it still have a hold on Washington? (Hint: Consider who the main beneficiaries of laissez-faire policies are, and compare to who has the most economic influence and lobbyists in D.C.)

  21. The main beneficiaries? The poor? I don’t think they have the most influence.

    You think the policies you believe in are heaven sent. I disagree. But I’m not going to get into a long drawn out discussion with Bob or yourself over this. No one is going to be convinced here, so why bother? None of us can make any arguments that aren’t out there in a hundred places already.

    We can get to the end with one line.

    Dear comment readers,
    Google: supply side and demand side. Print the wikis out. Enter bathroom. Read. Pick one. Flush. Exit bathroom.

  22. An instructive find, thanks…

  23. Funny how after Michael’s posts all comments ceased. Nothing to say Bob?

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: