Debt Per American Citizen Rises Even More Under Obamao
-
the national deficit is deficit spending for the year.
The national debt is an accumulation of all the years
of deficit spending.
I think.
-
Deficit spending is the gap between what you earn and what you spend. The national debt is what you owe so far.
If you reverse the gap you can reduce the debt.
WSS
-
The debt has risen under every President ever to sit in office. Except Clinton. Every one.
-
the national deficit is deficit spending for the year.
The national debt is an accumulation of all the years
of deficit spending.
I think.
the national deficit is deficit spending for the year.
The national debt is an accumulation of all the years
of deficit spending.
I think.
Not quite. See what steve said. It's the gap between what you earn and what you spend. And, in relative terms, it's around the same as pre-crisis, hovering between 2-4% of GDP annually.
Now, I'm not here saying that's good, or the end goal. But considering it was somewhere in the region of 10% in 2009, it's now reaching a more 'normal' level. It needs to go on and become a surplus if you ask me. Not every year, sometimes you need to invest a bit, but long term.
-
I confused debt and deficit, so that was my mistake. And yes, under Clinton, we eliminated the deficit and had a surplus. When Bush came in he then wrote $600+ checks to every American which eliminated the surplus in an instant(120 billion dollars was mailed out and called a stimulus package). Stupid. Stupid Stupid. Here is a graphic from the Congressional Budget Office that shows it. Not a bogus source like the Blaze. The actual Guberment. Chris is right, the percentage of debt has remained the same. The deficit grew to a record size under Bush and now has been brought way down again(like Clinton did). Cant dent the truth when its right in front of you. Though Im sure someone will try.
-
Okay, so what did Clinton do to make that happen? And why are we in recession at the end of his administration? And why were we rolling along like gangbusters until two years before the end of the Bush administration? And which party took control of both the houses right before the housing bubble burst?
And a whole bunch of other shit that we have no way of answering. Just saying.
WSS
-
Okay, so what did Clinton do to make that happen? And why are we in recession at the end of his administration? And why were we rolling along like gangbusters until two years before the end of the Bush administration? And which party took control of both the houses right before the housing bubble burst?
And a whole bunch of other shit that we have no way of answering. Just saying.
WSS
Does anyone remember 80s? Did you have a computer? Did you have the internet? Probably not. Do you have one today? Yes you do and it's absolutely essential to modern life. What happened between those two? The 90s. The computer revolution was just that: a revolution. It changed everything, affected every industry and every office and every home in America...in the world...who was president in the 90s? Bill Clinton. He had little to do with it. His main contribution was not fucking up and paying the bills when there was huge amounts of money being made.Okay, so what did Clinton do to make that happen? And why are we in recession at the end of his administration? And why were we rolling along like gangbusters until two years before the end of the Bush administration? And which party took control of both the houses right before the housing bubble burst?
And a whole bunch of other shit that we have no way of answering. Just saying.
WSS
-
2008 is skewed because of the recession. If this graph went further you'd actually see the deficit has consistently gone down under Obama otherwise.
Frankly they're all terrible, but you're wrong to say Obama has been worse for the deficit than Bush.
You can't dispute it, but you'll try to anyway cuz you read the blaze
-
Congress writes the checks, not the president.
-
and he called BUSH's debt amount UNPATRIOTIC ?
Seriously?
We used to hear this calc spouted off by libs all the damn time.
With Obamao, nothin. All that feigned liberal indignance - solely for
political expediencies' sake.
Our debt is big, serious trouble. And the rest of us are, if any dem wins the WH.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/831452985033907-debt-7061291-household-obamas-first-7-years
and he called BUSH's debt amount UNPATRIOTIC ?
Seriously?
We used to hear this calc spouted off by libs all the damn time.
With Obamao, nothin. All that feigned liberal indignance - solely for
political expediencies' sake.
Our debt is big, serious trouble. And the rest of us are, if any dem wins the WH.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/831452985033907-debt-7061291-household-obamas-first-7-years
Really?
Amount Added to the National Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1982: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase in the $11.657 trillion debt level due to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.FY 2013 - $672 billion.FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.FY 2007 - $501 billion.FY 2006 - $574 billion.FY 2005 - $554 billion.FY 2004 - $596 billion.FY 2003 - $555 billion.FY 2002 - $421 billion.Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase in the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.FY 2001 - $133 billion.FY 2000 - $18 billion.FY 1999 - $130 billion.FY 1998 - $113 billion.FY 1997 - $188 billion.FY 1996 - $251 billion.FY 1995 - $281 billion.FY 1994 - $281 billion.George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase in the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.FY 1993 - $347 billion.FY 1992 - $399 billion.FY 1991 - $432 billion.FY 1990 - $376 billion.Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase in the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.FY 1989 - $255 billion.FY 1988 - $252 billion.FY 1987 - $225 billion.FY 1986 - $297 billion.FY 1985 - $256 billion.FY 1984 - $195 billion.FY 1983 - $235 billion.FY 1982 - $144 billion.Average Percent Increase of National Debt by Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush 1.0, Bush 2.0): 114% increase from predecessor's final FY budgetAverage Percent Increase of National Debt by Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Obama): 42.5% increase from predecessor's final FY budget -
Reagan's trickle down economics have been a disaster for this country. It's an establishment thing and its shameful that politicians still consider the theory valid. It's by far the biggest contributor to our deficit.
Clinton was not bad in regards to the deficit but there's a lot of other problems - he had a naturally booming economy and NAFTA became law under him, which will hopefully be taken care of soon.
While I'm not an outright Trump supporter, it is a joke that we love free trade while said trading partners rape us following different rules.
And I don't think it mattered it was Reagan, I think no matter who the current president was then they would have fallen for it and we'd be in mostly the same place.
-
I confused debt and deficit, so that was my mistake. And yes, under Clinton, we eliminated the deficit and had a surplus. When Bush came in he then wrote $600+ checks to every American which eliminated the surplus in an instant(120 billion dollars was mailed out and called a stimulus package). Stupid. Stupid Stupid. Here is a graphic from the Congressional Budget Office that shows it. Not a bogus source like the Blaze. The actual Guberment. Chris is right, the percentage of debt has remained the same. The deficit grew to a record size under Bush and now has been brought way down again(like Clinton did). Cant dent the truth when its right in front of you. Though Im sure someone will try.
I confused debt and deficit, so that was my mistake. And yes, under Clinton, we eliminated the deficit and had a surplus. When Bush came in he then wrote $600+ checks to every American which eliminated the surplus in an instant(120 billion dollars was mailed out and called a stimulus package). Stupid. Stupid Stupid. Here is a graphic from the Congressional Budget Office that shows it. Not a bogus source like the Blaze. The actual Guberment. Chris is right, the percentage of debt has remained the same. The deficit grew to a record size under Bush and now has been brought way down again(like Clinton did). Cant dent the truth when its right in front of you. Though Im sure someone will try.
Okay, so what did Clinton do to make that happen?...
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/fl/President-Bill-Clintons-Economic-Policies.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_Bill_Clinton#Fiscal_policy
And why are we in recession at the end of his administration?...
Mostly from the dot com bubble bursting. The stock market crash of 20002002, which followed as a direct result, caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002 However, it technically wasn't a recession, since there were not two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, but losing $5 trillion in that short of a time isn't good by any measure, I suppose.
And why were we rolling along like gangbusters until two years before the end of the Bush administration? ...
Great Recession. But the origins of that span both Clinton's and Bush 2.0's presidency's and their general policies of deregulation, so no one president/party is solely to blame
http://spectator.org/articles/42211/true-origins-financial-crisis
...And which party took control of both the houses right before the housing bubble burst?
That would be the 110th United States Congress, which had Democratic majorities in both houses. However, if you are postulating that the Democratic majority of that Congress were the main perpetrators of the Great Recession, you would be mistaken. As mentioned above, the origins of the Great Recession began back with the initial housing market and subprime mortgage deregulation; some consider the repeal of GlassSteagall Act in 1999 a major contributor to the future crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall:_Aftermath_of_repeal ; the repeal was tied to a bill passed by a Republican-majority Congress back in 1999, and signed by Bill Clinton that same year. Further deregulation occured during Bush 2.0 administration, which had both Republican and Democratic majority Congress'.
-
Reagan's trickle down economics have been a disaster for this country. It's an establishment thing and its shameful that politicians still consider the theory valid. It's by far the biggest contributor to our deficit.
Clinton was not bad in regards to the deficit but there's a lot of other problems - he had a naturally booming economy and NAFTA became law under him, which will hopefully be taken care of soon.
While I'm not an outright Trump supporter, it is a joke that we love free trade while said trading partners rape us following different rules.
And I don't think it mattered it was Reagan, I think no matter who the current president was then they would have fallen for it and we'd be in mostly the same place.
Reagan's trickle down economics have been a disaster for this country. It's an establishment thing and its shameful that politicians still consider the theory valid. It's by far the biggest contributor to our deficit.
Clinton was not bad in regards to the deficit but there's a lot of other problems - he had a naturally booming economy and NAFTA became law under him, which will hopefully be taken care of soon.
While I'm not an outright Trump supporter, it is a joke that we love free trade while said trading partners rape us following different rules.
And I don't think it mattered it was Reagan, I think no matter who the current president was then they would have fallen for it and we'd be in mostly the same place.Did Reaganomics Work and Would It Work Today?:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/Reaganomics.htm
"...Reaganomics would fix stagflation by reducing government -- a policy that was dramatically different from the status quo. Reagan promised to reduce:
- The growth of government spending
- Both income and capital gains taxes
- Regulation.
- Inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply.
Reaganomics was based on the theory of supply-side economics, which states that tax cuts give companies more cash to hire new workers, expand their businesses and create a supply of goods and services. Cuts give workers more incentive to work, increasing the supply of labor. Eventually, economic growth expands the tax base enough to replace the government revenue initially lost from the cuts".
"...Inflation was tamed -- thanks to monetary, not fiscal policy. Reagan's tax cuts did end the recession. However, government spending wasn't lowered, just shifted from domestic programs to defense. The result? The Federal debt almost tripled, from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.857 trillion in 1989.
-
"That would be the 110th United States Congress, which had Democratic majorities in both houses. However, if you are postulating that the Democratic majority of that CongreS's"
Yes indeed. And in line with all the bullshit we hear about Obama did this or somebody else did that just because we play musical chairs, I'm pointing out that there is no crash until Democrats took over. Meaningful? Coincidence? You decide.
Just make note for when your girl Hilary brags about the economy under her old man.
WSS
-
put lipstick on this pig, libs. Don't miss the part about "for the first time ever".... on purpose.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/national-debt-hits-19-trillion/article/2582097
-
say, this is also liberal lipstick on a pig material:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/31/americas-economic-freedom-has-rapidly-declined-under-obama/
-
National debt is now 19 trillion dollars and growing. If Obama is right that Bush was unpatriotic for accumulating a national debt of 9-10 trillion dollars under his presidency than Obama is downright traitorous taking us to 19 trillion under his presidency and will it be over 20 trillion by the time he leaves office.
-
The popular liberal refrain was how wrong it was for us to
put all that debt on "our children's future".
Now, you can hear snowflakes land when you listen to libs not talk about our debt.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login