Eisenhower and Nixon are the only ones I can think of. Of course Bush and Obama together spent more than all the rest combined.
Was Just Listening To Some Conservative Talk Radio.
- Thread starter mame
- Start date
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Your comparing 3 presidents that served 20 years to 2 presidents who so far have served 11. So if the 3 has done double the damage, then they are all the same.
Obama's spending has destroyed any competition of past presidents. You hold on to that argument while it lasts. If Obama gets reelected, it'll be a different story.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I tell you this you can't have two wars and not pay for them, but instead turn it over to the next POTUS...If Obama is allowed to let the taxes go back to pre-bush(jr) years you would not have anything to say...Bush screwed this country and you guys can't or won't admit the truth..instead you jump on the side that keeps raising our debt more then any...I keep telling you ..numbers don't lie people do
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Funny how you obtained that from lafn.org hosted Gardena Valley Democrat Club. Couldn't find any non biased sources, eh?
That chart is showing the debt to GDP ratio. Try this one on for size:
No president has decreased the national debt since Roosevelt.
Next time, use a source for an argument that doesn't make you look like a biased idiot, no offense.
I'm libertarian.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the "no offense" does not mask your feelings at all
but that chart shows basically the same thing as londonfog's chart.
facts are liberal
sync0s
Well-Known Member
the "no offense" does not mask your feelings at all
but that chart shows basically the same thing as londonfog's chart.
facts are liberal
They are the same statistics, but londonfog's chart both claims to be representing the actual number in debt, and mine is showing the actual debt numbers. His chart represents the idea that bill clinton decreased the debt which is completely false.
In addition, it's kind of hard finding a chart that includes obama.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
to be honest guy I wasn't trying to be bias ..I liked the chart because it was colorfuland I never said he decreased the debt...didn't add to
The chart just upset me because on the chart it says the national debt, nothing about per GDP. It was put together with the total intention of misleading people who view it and making them convert to democrat.
I'm tired and ornery tonight I guess, I'm just going to sit here, eat some cinnamon sugar toast, smoke a bowl, and pass out
deprave
New Member
I am glad they are standing up for the people...the economy its bad, but unemployment numbers really don't mean anything...so 18% take advantage of unemployment...what does that have to do with , honey badgers.
[video=youtube;4r7wHMg5Yjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg[/video]
(btw i clicked none because I want more money, Im highly in favor of more money, with emphasis on highly)
[video=youtube;4r7wHMg5Yjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg[/video]
(btw i clicked none because I want more money, Im highly in favor of more money, with emphasis on highly)
Alot. I think he's focusing on the definition as it applies to GDP exclusively. But in this era of Wallstreet welfare it's a bit inaccurate.
It kinda ignores the bigger picture IMO. Just like the official unemployment numbers.
mame
Well-Known Member
Official numbers are just fake voodoo numbers that the evil guv'ment made up to trick your poor feeble mind!
Hint: there's nothing wrong with unemployment rates (as a measure) as long as you dont look at it by itself; The employment to population ratio is a great companion, and is also published by the government... It's not a conspiracy to hide useful information from the public... You just have to be smarter than the average downs kid to find it.
Hint: there's nothing wrong with unemployment rates (as a measure) as long as you dont look at it by itself; The employment to population ratio is a great companion, and is also published by the government... It's not a conspiracy to hide useful information from the public... You just have to be smarter than the average downs kid to find it.
Yep, i would imagine that 20 years of spending would probably equate to more than 3 years of spending would.
Yes its based on GDP. Since all government spending is added to GDP you can always make the numbers show growth by purchasing shit with taxpayer or borrowed funds. i.e., the government will gladly buy 1 billion toothbrushes at $1000 each to show a $1 trillion increase in GDP. Its the exact same thing China does. Well they build brand new giant cities that people don't live in instead of brushes because they know the value of infrastructure, whereas the USA will pass a tooth brushing law to force use of your own dollar borrowed at interest to brush your teeth to pay for the $1000 toothbrush.
woodsusa
Well-Known Member
I don't think the Bush tax cuts should be eliminated for the rich. We all pay enough taxes. We could probably lower corporate taxes if they would just eliminate the corporate tax loopholes that let mega corporations like GE get away with paying no corporate income tax. And let's get rid of the subsidies and pork while we are at it.
Oh yeah, did anyone in Congress mention what cuts they would personally be taking in doing their part for our countries deficit reduction? I didn't hear anything. Hmmm...
Oh yeah, did anyone in Congress mention what cuts they would personally be taking in doing their part for our countries deficit reduction? I didn't hear anything. Hmmm...
If you figure unemployment the way they did from 1900-1990 you will find we are actually at 23% unemployment. To make a comparison to the Great Deprerssion's 25-40% unemployment levels shouldn't you use the same measuring stick?
mame
Well-Known Member
That's fair I guess, but the reason they changed it was because it was a poor indicator of economic performance - it wasn't accurate enough in identifying trends that one would base policy decisions off of. The FED uses the NAIRU, for example, which would be a different number under a different calculation which could lead them to print more money than they should. They break statistic indicators down like this for good reason, another example being the CPI vs. core inflation numbers.
Seriously though, if you took a gander at the employment to population ratio you'd quickly fall in love with it. It doesn't even rely on including lazy kids or grandma into the unemployment calculations to make this "recovery" look bad:
see? You dont need to go through mental gymnastics to show how poor the recovery has been...
Oh, I almost forgot... Remember the whole inflation debate we're always having?
This is core inflation but it's slightly different, and published by the atlanta fed...
This one here is from the Cleveland Fed:
It really is shaping up to be a lost decade, sadly.
Similar threads
