I’ll just take it at face value as accurate. What it means to me is a few things. First, we have a spending problem. There is not one President that has not added to the debt in recent years. Anyway, to address the point I’m sure you were trying to make, there are a few issues. Congress also plays into spending quite a bit, wouldn’t you say? Secondly, Bush spent entirely too much. Obama spent that plus an additional 16%. Why point to Bush as a big spender to argue in favor of a guy that spent that plus 16% of that huge number? Bush did his in 8 years, Obama in 2-3 and also deferred costs by delaying Obama care which doesn’t even figure into that. It also points out that the Clinton surplus is a myth. How can there be a surplus and the debt still go up? On this issue, neither party is responsible and excusing it for one because the other did it too allows it to continue. It’s time for our country to grow up.
I’ll just take it at face value as accurate. What it means to me is a few things. First, we have a spending problem. There is not one President that has not added to the debt in recent years. Anyway, to address the point I’m sure you were trying to make, there are a few issues. Congress also plays into spending quite a bit, wouldn’t you say? Secondly, Bush spent entirely too much. Obama spent that plus an additional 16%. Why point to Bush as a big spender to argue in favor of a guy that spent that plus 16% of that huge number? Bush did his in 8 years, Obama in 2-3 and also deferred costs by delaying Obama care which doesn’t even figure into that. It also points out that the Clinton surplus is a myth. How can there be a surplus and the debt still go up? On this issue, neither party is responsible and excusing it for one because the other did it too allows it to continue. It’s time for our country to grow up.
Oh, ok, that makes sense.
However all I keep seeing on Fox News and from the Tea Party is the Anti-Christ Obama has run record breaking deficits, spent more than any president in US history.
All the while I hear and see that I think about this quote-
Dick Cheney 2002- “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
However all I keep seeing on Fox News and from the Tea Party is the Anti-Christ Obama has run record breaking deficits, spent more than any president in US history.
He has.
TBE - 28 September 2011 11:23 AM
All the while I hear and see that I think about this quote-
Dick Cheney 2002- “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
I didn’t agree with that when he said it and it’s that attitude/arrogance that got the republicans booted out of Congress. The democrats misunderstood the point and decided to spend more.
TBE - 28 September 2011 11:23 AM
I’m still confused. What does all this mean?
I believe you.
Let me break it down for you.
There was republican president with a democrat congress that added a lot of debt. Then there was another republican president with a democrat congress that added more debt on top of that but not quite the same percentage. Then there was a democrat president with a democrat congress that also added spending but the total was curtailed with the “republican revolution” and a move to the center by the President, but they still added debt. Then, there was a republican president with a republican congress that completely forgot about what they said they would do and added too much debt. They were voted out and the democrat congress came in with a republican president and there was still too much debt added. Then a democrat president came in with a democrat congress and piled it on top to the rest of the pile of debt and have not even counted a $trillion healthcare law into the total because they delayed the implementation to make the numbers look better.
The outcome of all this (what it really means) is that we’re going to be the first generation of Americans to fail to leave our children a better country than was left to us - but we can all say the other side was worse than us.
I don’t think you looked at the chart. According to the chart, which is fact, and designed by Treasury, it clearly shows Obama has spent the least out of all our most recent presidents.
I guess I should just go ahead and listen to your perspective and not pay any attention to facts by numbers. Is that what your saying?
I don’t think you looked at the chart. According to the chart, which is fact, and designed by Treasury, it clearly shows Obama has spent the least out of all our most recent presidents.
I guess I should just go ahead and listen to your perspective and not pay any attention to facts by numbers. Is that what your saying?
No. What I’m saying is that you should learn something about math. If the first guy spends $100 and the second guy increases that by 100%, then the second guy spent $200. If the third guy increases that by 16% then he has spent $232 - the most of the three.
What in the heck does that have to do with Obama increasing spending by 16 percent verses Reagan increasing the spending by 189 percent? And Bush by 115%?
Obama clearly has spent less than all of them. It’s right there…. right in front of you, and honestly your telling me you still don’t see it.
That my friend is absolutely amazing. Or your playing games…. either way it’s sad.
Didn’t each of the presidents listed (Except Bush Sr) serve 8 years? Also, could the Cold War be attributed to some of Regan’s spending as well as the beginning of war in the middle east for Bush’s? I’m not a politics guy but seems to be the case. I would also be interested in seeing the $ numbers instead of percentages. 16% could be a ton of money and be put out of prospective.
Oh man. Tbe… I don’t think Curggr could state it any clearer. Obama has without a doubt spent more than any president EVER. You have the chart in front of you! Now the % may not have gone up as high as other presidents, but he is still spending more TOTAL.
As long as spending has increased under Obama (any % above 0), then he will be the biggest spender ever. Do you not understand that?? Or are you playing games? Either way, it’s sad.
You my man, are absolutely amazing…. but horrible at math and reading comprehension.
Oh man. Tbe… I don’t think Curggr could state it any clearer. Obama has without a doubt spent more than any president EVER. You have the chart in front of you! Now the % may not have gone up as high as other presidents, but he is still spending more TOTAL.
As long as spending has increased under Obama (any % above 0), then he will be the biggest spender ever. Do you not understand that?? Or are you playing games? Either way, it’s sad.
You my man, are absolutely amazing…. but horrible at math and reading comprehension.
I quoted you, but this is for everyone.
We are all pretty smart people. I can tell that by most everyone’s posts talking football etc. so, let’s have a civil discussion here. Including you MWC who will eventually chime in.
Of course Obama has spent more than Bush. 16% percent more….. I got that. So yes, all the presidents have spent more than each other according to the chart. Reagan started it, and every president since has added to the GDP.
My point is, and again according to the chart, Obama has added to the GDP at alarmingly lower rates then the previous presidents. Imagine if he added to the deficit at the rate Reagan or Bush did.
And keep in mind, much of Bush’s deficit spending isn’t even on the chart since he hid the wars and kept them off the books.
Web, it’s not a question of whether I can see the chart. Of course I can. You and Cuggar entirely missed my point.
Imagine if Obama spent like Reagan and Bush did. And under the circumstances that Obama had when he took over, Bush’s spending blew us up. We had to have an infusion of spending ie GM bail out which was incredibly successful, and other things that the stimulus bailed out, we would have went into a deep depression. There is no way Obama could have taken what Bush left him without spending some to keep us afloat. And it did….
If anything, he should have spent more. Perhaps more like Clinton or the first Bush.
What in the heck does that have to do with Obama increasing spending by 16 percent verses Reagan increasing the spending by 189 percent? And Bush by 115%?
Obama clearly has spent less than all of them. It’s right there…. right in front of you, and honestly your telling me you still don’t see it.
That my friend is absolutely amazing. Or your playing games…. either way it’s sad.
Seriously? You’re mixing percent with actual dollars. The total doesn’t return to zero with each President. When Reagan increased it, that becamse the new baseline to which Bush added. Bush’s addition became the baseline to which Clinton added his percentage. That became the new baseline to which Bush II added his percentage. That became the baseline to which Obama added his. He spent each of their additions plus 16%. Again, that does not include a trillion dollar healthcare plan that he cleverly delayed which would put his percentage equal to Bush II, only Bush II did his in 8 years versus 3.
What part of this- Of course Obama has spent more than Bush. 16% percent more….. I got that. So yes, all the presidents have spent more than each other according to the chart. Reagan started it, and every president since has added to the GDP.
My point is, and again according to the chart, Obama has added to the GDP at alarmingly lower rates then the previous presidents. Imagine if he added to the deficit at the rate Reagan or Bush did.
What part of this- Of course Obama has spent more than Bush. 16% percent more….. I got that. So yes, all the presidents have spent more than each other according to the chart. Reagan started it, and every president since has added to the GDP.
My point is, and again according to the chart, Obama has added to the GDP at alarmingly lower rates then the previous presidents. Imagine if he added to the deficit at the rate Reagan or Bush did.
Do you not understand?
I get that quite clearly, but it’s not that simple. A couple of points in response. First, these numbers do not include Obama’s signature legislation - the healthcare law - the thing he wants the most credit for passing. The cost of that plan would put his percentage about equal to Bush. Bush accomplished his massive spending in 8 years, versus Obama’s 3. If a running back ran for 6,000 yards over the course of 8 years and another ran for the same in 3, wouldn’t you argue that the second guy should be considered to have had better years than the first guy? In this case, that accomplishment comes in the form of debt.
Secondly, if you take it out of percentages and make it dollars, then the numbers look a little more significant. If one President inherits spending of 50 billion and increases it 100% then the total comes to 100 billion. However 16% of a trillion is 160 billion. Since debt payment is in the form of acutual dollars, we should deal in actual dollars which then reflects a massive increase. At the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the debt was about $12 trillion; it’s now about $14 trillion. If you add the healthcare bill it would be about $15 trillion. This also doesn’t include the $400 billion he just proposed.
To the bigger point, I’m not trying to defend anyone’s addition to the debt. You’re pointing to a massive increase by Bush to say that was bad, but then somehow suggest we shouldn’t be upset about Obama who has added on top of that massive debt that you are saying was so bad. If Bush’s additions were so awful, then it should have been easy for Obama to make cuts or to at least keep it even. However, he added trillions. My question is, at what point are we supposed to worry about the debt? When is it too much?
Didn’t each of the presidents listed (Except Bush Sr) serve 8 years? Also, could the Cold War be attributed to some of Regan’s spending as well as the beginning of war in the middle east for Bush’s? I’m not a politics guy but seems to be the case. I would also be interested in seeing the $ numbers instead of percentages. 16% could be a ton of money and be put out of prospective.
