Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 767, 768, 769 ... 1142, 1143, 1144 Next

Post to this Topic

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 7:05am

steeler wrote:

I was referencing the prism by which one might construe the comments made on this thread.

Again, I do not think anyone is disputing that there is a problem with national debt that is increasing exponentially.

And, again, there is legitimacy to looking at factors in play during any period of time. Using presidential terms as periods of time does inject a political element into it that probably does skew it away from more objective analysis in many discussions.

Yes, there are many other discussions to be had.

In this case it's comparisons based upon the change in the national debt under different administrations as defined in the original post.

It's a valid discussion under the terms in the OP.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 6:54am

sirdroseph wrote:

steeler wrote:

Depends on the prism one is looking through, I guess.

i agree that selectively lashing out at the rise of debt during a presidential tenure based on trying to score partisan political points is folly.

I do think there is some legitimacy in looking at the rise of debt during particular periods of time to analyze what factors were in play.

Prism? That is exactly what I am trying to avoid, just straight up numbers man and they go up and up exponentially. There is no prism or guessing here.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 6:24am

maryte wrote:

Yes, and you might have noticed that the cost of living is considerably higher now compared to the early 80s, and THAT's why you look at percentages and not straight dollars. Apples and oranges.

Look at the numbers again. It's apples to apples. The cost of living (real inflation) was factored in. These are the equivalent dollar amounts adjusted correctly. I'm just using your parameters as defined in your original post.

Here, the .gov CPI calculator ...

Want to try again ? You're the stat expert, not me ...

But I ♥ macro economics ...

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 6:16am

steeler wrote:

Prism? That is exactly what I am trying to avoid, just straight up numbers man and they go up and up exponentially. There is no prism or guessing here.

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 6:06am

Why do deficits happen? Increased spending or decreased tax revenue. Both happened during Reagan and Obama's terms in response to a recession. For Reagan, he increased spending (on military) and reduced taxes (revenue)...the tax cut is what helped us get out of the recession. Obama arguably inherited a much worse mess than Reagan. He also increased spending (on infrastructure) and saw revenue drop because of the recession (higher unemployment and lower corporate profits...). He also extended the Bush tax cuts. Under Reagan, spending increased 126% (from 1980-1989, in real terms). Under Obama, spending increased 120% (from 2008 - 2017, in real terms).

p.s., deficits accelerated under Reagan, while they were cut under Obama (his largest deficit was $1.4t in 2009, which arguably belongs to Bush), although they did pick up again the last couple of years due to ACA, part of which was just a cost shift from private funding to public.

maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 5:47am

kurtster wrote:

See below. While he may have been the first domino, using percentages as you did to make your point, Reagan is still a fiscal conservative compared to Obama. Obama outspent Reagan by 257%.

Yes, and you might have noticed that the cost of living is considerably higher now compared to the early 80s, and THAT's why you look at percentages and not straight dollars. Apples and oranges.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 5:41am
maryte wrote: My point was that Reagan was the first domino and pretending he was a fiscal conservative is stuff and nonsense. See below. While he may have been the first domino, using percentages as you did to make your point, Reagan is still a fiscal conservative compared to Obama. Obama outspent Reagan by 257%.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 5:39am

steeler wrote:

So, the percentages are unimportant/irrelevant? Reagan increase 190 percent vs 90 percent increase for Obama?

Arguments using percentages are misleading. They are heavily dependent on context and qualifications. It's the bottom line that matters most.

Let's look at these numbers in dispute a bit differently, shall we ?

Ronald Reagan 8 years $1,695 billion

Barrack Obama 8 Years $8,900 billion

When Reagan dollars are adjusted for inflation from the year 1988 to present, 2018, they may mean a bit more.

Ronald Reagan 8 years $3,560 billion in 2018 dollars ...
or in 2016 dollars, the year Obama left office ... $3,450 billion

Barrack Obama 8 Years $8,900 billion in 2016 dollars

Ronald Reagan 8 years $3,450 billion in 2016 dollars

Obama spent 257% more than Reagan, in 2016 dollars

Now we have apples to apples.

Reagan was a piker compared to Obama.

eh ? Still want to argue in percentages ?

maryte

maryte Avatar

Location: Blinding You With Library Science!
Gender: Female

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 5:33am
My point was that Reagan was the first domino and pretending he was a fiscal conservative is stuff and nonsense.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 4:58am

sirdroseph wrote:

steeler wrote:

I do not think anyone is disputing that.

You wouldn't know it reading down this thread.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 4:47am
Â steeler wrote: I do not think anyone is disputing that. Â You wouldn't know it reading down this thread.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 4:44am

sirdroseph wrote:

Yes they are irrelevant and so is all of the partisan bickering. Bottom line is ALL of these Presidents and perhaps more importantly CONGRESS for the past 40 plus years or so have completely lost restraint when it comes to passing the debt on to future generations. These are all the numbers that matter:

Ronald Reagan:
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Barack Obama:
Left office 20 January 2017. Total debt: $19,573 billion

Seems to be there are no "winners" here, but yay team.

I do not think anyone is disputing that.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 15, 2018 - 2:36am

steeler wrote:

So, the percentages are unimportant/irrelevant? Reagan increase 190 percent vs 90 percent increase for Obama?

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:56pm

kurtster wrote:

That's not very nice ...

Yer kidding, right ? 2011 ?

How about

Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Left office 20 January 2017. Total debt: $19,573 billion
Percent change in total debt: +90% or $8,900 billion

Donald Trump:
Took office 20 January 2017 Total debt: $19,573 billion
1st year ending 20 January 2018 Total debt: $20,244 billion
Percent change in total debt: +3% or $ 671 billion

Let's keep it real, right ?

Speaking of real ...

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218% or $1,850 billion

or with the right numbers and math ...

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $907 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,602 billion
Percent change in total debt: +190% ± or $1,695 billion

Ronald Reagan 8 years $1,695 billion

Barrack Obama 8 Years $8,900 billion

Currently the Nat Debt Clock shows $20,631 Trillion

Trump seems to be slowing things down, right ?

:thismileagewillnotvary:

So, the percentages are unimportant/irrelevant? Reagan increase 190 percent vs 90 percent increase for Obama?

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:56pm
kurtster wrote: Sorry, fixing all those math errors down below really took a lot out of me. Jeezuz, we're really lowering the bar around here lately ... using stuff from 2011 and 2012 ... Still plenty of space left for you to limbo right through there...

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:46pm
R_P wrote: It's the source of the (fake news) picture... Sorry, fixing all those math errors down below really took a lot out of me. Jeezuz, we're really lowering the bar around here lately ... using stuff from 2011 and 2012 ...

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:39pm
kurtster wrote: No, he just got 90% of all previous presidents combined. Isn't 10% a rounding number these days ? and an article from 2012 ? yer off yer game ... It's the source of the (fake news) picture...

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:30pm

R_P wrote:

sdwright wrote:

Yeah sure, point at Reagan (presumably because he wasn't a Dem)... so maybe no one will mention the elephant in the room....

(...) And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. (...)

No, he just got 90% of all previous presidents combined. Isn't 10% a rounding number these days ? {#Mrgreen}

and an article from 2012 ? yer off yer game ...

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:24pm

maryte wrote:

JFC. A picture. You post a fucking picture.

Let's look at percentages - starting point v. ending point. This is from the US Treasury Department:

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%

And, no, I don't point at Reagan because of his party - Eisenhower was a Republican and he understood fiscal responsibility. I point at Reagan because he and the people who supported/enabled/voted for him are pretty much responsible for the state of this country, fiscally and socially. You have a problem with government debt, start looking there.

That's not very nice ...

Yer kidding, right ? 2011 ?

How about

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 14, 2018 - 7:07pm
sdwright wrote: Yeah sure, point at Reagan (presumably because he wasn't a Dem)... so maybe no one will mention the elephant in the room.... (...) And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. (...)

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 767, 768, 769 ... 1142, 1143, 1144 Next