Is this accurate?

Also is one president's debt better/worse than another's?

A friend said something about about Reagan's debt was mostly bonds sold to private parties, while Obama's was bonds sold to the government, so since the private parties got the interest versus the government getting the interest, Reagan's debt was "better." What's the TRUTH?

School me tdub.

7/19/2012 8:51:32 PM

looks fairly accurate from my understanding of the subject. one thing that's misleading imo though is the Obama 2009 budget was basically established by the lame duck Bush administration + congress.

either way you cut it though, that's a pretty awful 30 years of fiscal management. fucking baby boomers

7/19/2012 10:01:56 PM

A lot has gone on between 2008 and 2012, can you find any charts with those dates included?

7/19/2012 10:11:19 PM

basically all you can conclude is that it went up exponentially under everyone besides clinton. not really a party deal. more of a tech boom deal.

[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM. Reason : k]

7/20/2012 1:06:05 AM

There are a lot of different ways to look at debt and debt growth

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/



[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 7:04 AM. Reason : I'm not claiming the way Forbes framed it is the best, but its worth it to read the article]

7/20/2012 7:03:59 AM

Quote :

"one thing that's misleading imo though is the Obama 2009 budget was basically established by the lame duck Bush administration + congress."

is this not mostly true every 4 years anyways? Monetary policy often takes time to have impacts or to cease impacts.

7/20/2012 8:24:57 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives approved on Thursday $606 billion in defense spending for next year after two days of debate that saw lawmakers from both parties line up to condemn the ongoing war in Afghanistan as a waste of lives and money. http://news.yahoo.com/house-votes-appropriate-606-billion-defense-002019706.html "

This amuses me. It makes it seem like they both hate the legislation but it passes anyway because the majority had to vote for it in order to pass! LoL




also:

The $64,000 Question: How Much Has Debt Increased Per Taxpayer Under Obama?

(CNSNews.com) - The national debt has now increased by more than $64,000 per federal taxpayer since Barack Obama was inaugurated president.

At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the U.S. Treasury, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. By the close of business on July 10, 2012, that debt had climbed to $15,885,854,755,351.47—an increase of $5,258,977,706,438.39.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64000-question-how-much-has-debt-increased-taxpayer-under-obama

7/20/2012 8:42:02 AM

None of that could possibly be attributed to the massive recession that Bush created.

7/20/2012 9:28:14 AM

If 3/4 of your graph is just barely above zero, you should probably adopt a logarithmic scale, adjust it for inflation or a % of GDP, or graph annual % change.

7/20/2012 9:43:26 AM

Quote :

"recession that Bush created."

this is as dumb of a statement as GOP hacks whining about Obama causing gas prices to be so high.

7/20/2012 9:56:15 AM

Tax cuts to wealthy and massive deregulation did nothing?

7/20/2012 9:57:49 AM

Quote :

"you should probably adopt a logarithmic scale"

i mean unless the exponential growth is the feature you want to draw attention to

7/20/2012 10:27:52 AM

Quote :

"None of that could possibly be attributed to the massive recession that Bush 30 years of bad policies created."

Bush is obviously guilty, but it definitely wasn't a one man show.

7/20/2012 10:55:03 AM

I don't know. It sure as hell looks like Clinton had a good grasp on shit.

7/20/2012 11:00:32 AM

How so?

7/20/2012 11:05:11 AM

Because the rate of growth flattened out at the end of his second term.

7/20/2012 11:09:28 AM

housing bubble

http://www.inflation.us/charts.html

[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

7/20/2012 11:51:54 AM

Quote :

"I don't know. It sure as hell looks like Clinton had a good grasp on shit."

You realize Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, right? That eradicated the barrier between banks being depository and concurrently being investment banks.

Either way, neither Clinton, nor Bush, nor Obama is solely responsible. The great recession was caused by a combination of government overspending, bad fiscal policies, bad actors in the private sector, bad actors in the general public, and the unsustainable culture of debt in the US.

Sorry, anyone who stands up and points the finger at one person or entity as being "*the* cause" is a fucking moron.

[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2012 12:07:53 PM

When was the OP's graph made? The fact that every other president got a bar-per-year and Obama got a single bar for the current state makes this feel a little loaded.

7/20/2012 12:12:09 PM

^^QFT

Wish more people would grasp that instead of the blind hatred for anything that the opposing party supports. This shit happens on both sides of the spectrum and nobody can admit that their side could be wrong on ANYTHING. All they see is that D or R on the end of an elected officials title and they can stop thinking and just slide those political party blinders on.

^It also says it was produced in 2010, so it may be that they just have not had a new one to post, either due to lack of available data or just no interest in doing it by the website/group that made the first one.

[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2012 12:18:52 PM

Quote :

"You realize Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, right? That eradicated the barrier between banks being depository and concurrently being investment banks. "

Bingo! our own David Price also supported this repeal.

how the hell do you forget lessons that you learned in the Great Depression?

BJ Lawson - philosophically a Liberatarian - wanted to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

if we don't reinstate Glass Steagall, WE WILL REPEAT THE MISTAKES THAT LED TO THE FALLOUT DURING THE IDES OF SEPTEMBER 2008 -- its just a matter of time

7/20/2012 1:20:37 PM

Quote :

"You realize Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, right? That eradicated the barrier between banks being depository and concurrently being investment banks. "

You realize that the repeal of Glass-Steagall is a red herring, right? The financial instruments created in the 70's and 80's had already blurred the line between investment and deposits, so the repeal of sections 20 and 32 of Glass-Steagall was an inevitiblity. The mortgage-backed securities at the heart of the crisis had zero to do with a repeal of the Glass-Steagall restrictions.

Europe does not have any laws separating deposit and investment banks. Neither does Canada or Australia. There is absolutely no proof that the repeal of Glass-Steagall laws on banks led to the financial crisis. In fact, the investment banks and financial institutions which got in the most trouble (Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merril Lynch, AIG) never took advantage of the repeal, while the banks which did take advantage (JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, etc) fared much better.

The only thing you can say about Gramm-Leach-Bliley is that it contributed to the formation of a few mega-banks which knew that they were too big to fail, who took excessive risks because of the implicit guarantees from having the entire financial system by the balls. This "too big to fail" issue is best addressed with legislation specifically targeting banks which pose a systemic risk to our financial system, rather than archaic laws to prevent bank diversification.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, by deregulating over-the-counter derivatives, was a much larger culprit in the financial crisis. Irrelevant, I know, considering that Clinton signed both, but still, I hate the wasteful energy spent on such a red herring.

[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM. Reason : 22]

7/20/2012 2:07:13 PM

Quote :

"i mean unless the exponential growth is the feature you want to draw attention to"

If it was happening in a vacuum with all other variables fixed, yes, but that's not the case here. There are these little things called population and economic growth that are also occurring in this timeframe, and it would make sense for government spending to be presented relative to those, since both revenue and expenditures are both a function of the population and the state of the economy.

[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2012 2:27:00 PM

Quote :

"If it was happening in a vacuum with all other variables fixed, yes, but that's not the case here. There are these little things called population and economic growth that are also occurring in this timeframe"

Not to mention inflation. Debt in 1945 was almost 4 trillion in today's dollars.

By neglecting to account for inflation, population increases, economic growth, etc, the graph gives the appearance of runaway debt. It's deliberately misleading.

Here's another graph to look at:



[Edited on July 20, 2012 at 3:23 PM. Reason : 2]

7/20/2012 3:17:52 PM

^ good graph

Also, Showing all figures in the same dollars is easy.

Quote :

"If it was happening in a vacuum with all other variables fixed, yes, but that's not the case here. There are these little things called population and economic growth that are also occurring in this timeframe, and it would make sense for government spending to be presented relative to those, since both revenue and expenditures are both a function of the population and the state of the economy."

Which is why this stuff is often presented relative to GDP

7/20/2012 6:25:50 PM

I believe we are over 16T now though. (and climbing) Adding another unfunded entitlement will surely help matters.

7/20/2012 10:59:30 PM

Quote :

"one thing that's misleading imo though is the Obama 2009 budget was basically established by the lame duck Bush administration + congress."

Yea bullshit. Congress didn't pass a budget for 2009 until Obama was in the white house because the Democrats controlled Congress and Bush refused to sign their budgets. But an insanely inflated budget wasn't enough, because within a month they passed and he signed an additional half trillion in spending followed by nearly a trillion stimulus, all of which was above and beyond the already insanely high 2009 budget.

So, no, any graph attributing 2009's spending to Bush is telling a bold faced lie.

7/21/2012 10:43:13 AM

Quote :

" Obama 2009 budget was basically established by the lame duck Bush administration + congress."

Interestingly, this was the last time any budget was approved by the (Democratic-controlled) Senate and thereby signed by the (Democratic) President.

I know what would happen to my family if I didn't have a budget for three years, and I don't have as much money as the federal government.

7/21/2012 12:24:28 PM

Question:


How many times has the debt ceiling been increased since Obama took office?



Pseudo-answer:


"Among its historical tables is one labeled "Statutory Limits on Federal debt 1940 - Current" (Table 7.3) The table lists 106 increases to the federal debt limit since 1940.

More specifically, it lists 18 increases to the debt ceiling between February 1981 and September 1987. In other words, there were 18 under President Ronald Reagan, as Obama said. And there were seven increases between January 2001 and January 2009 -- during George W. Bush's presidency. We should also note that it has been raised three times already under President Obama, on Feb. 17, 2009, Dec. 28, 2009 and Feb. 12, 2010.

We would be remiss if we failed to note that Obama opposed one of those increases to the debt ceiling under George W. Bush and criticized Bush for a lack of leadership.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said before a March 16, 2006, vote on raising the debt limit. The Senate narrowly approved raising the limit along partisan lines, 52-48, with all Democrats opposed."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/barack-obama/obama-says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/

7/21/2012 1:19:35 PM

Why are people giving Obama shit because he's increased spending at the lowest rate in the past 50 years?

7/21/2012 3:53:34 PM

George Washington through Bill Clinton=5T debt

GW Bush 8 yrs, got us to 10T

Obama in 3.5 now at 16T

Those are the numbers, you can divide it by whatever makes you feel better but those are the only ones that really matter. I know, when you put Obama spending into the MSNBC equation he has actually paid off the national debt. Or if we just take out XYZ, there really hasnt been that much MORE. lol

And this trend of the debt expanding will only get worse as the entitlements grow and the boomers get on the current ones. Adding another entitlement probably wont help matters either. haha

7/21/2012 10:19:14 PM

The national debt is looking like inflation numbers.





I wonder what germany's national debt was during this period... I can't really find it.

7/21/2012 10:38:56 PM

$Bavaria

7/21/2012 10:45:25 PM

Quote :

"Yea bullshit. Congress didn't pass a budget for 2009 until Obama was in the white house because the Democrats controlled Congress and Bush refused to sign their budgets."

Its worth noting that Mises:

http://archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

and Cato:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

both disagree with you. The vast majority of the 2009 budget was largely laid out by the time Obama took office.

Quote :

"But an insanely inflated budget wasn't enough, because within a month they passed and he signed an additional half trillion in spending followed by nearly a trillion stimulus, all of which was above and beyond the already insanely high 2009 budget. "

The appropriations bill Obama signed should probably be included for him in 2009, but its chump change compared to the 3 trillion Bush laid out for that year. The stimulus spending is also Obama's, but was spread out over more than just 2009 (so only a portion of it should be included in 2009 spending) and don't forget that something like 1/3rd of it was tax cuts.



I'm not going to try to make the argument that Obama is some sort of spend thrift, that would just be dumb. However, Obama is not the "out of control" big spender he is framed as. (when you compare him with other presidents in recent history)

7/22/2012 9:34:03 AM

Quote :

"The vast majority of the 2009 budget was largely laid out by the time Obama took office."

All that is saying is that the Senate did what they should, until Obama took office.

That lends to the perception that they don't want their constituents to know how much money they are spending.

7/22/2012 2:45:34 PM

^ your words only make sense with the assumption that what they laid out was significantly different from what was spent. Was it? Or are you bullshitting?

[Edited on July 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2012 4:05:38 PM

Quote :

" Why are people giving Obama shit because he's increased spending at the lowest rate in the past 50 years?"

That's a specious argument based on a quirk in the numbers. We spent so much in 2009 to combat the recession that spending had to come down after. Not to mention that the recent spending cuts have been muscled through by the GOP House over the objections of Obama.

7/22/2012 4:45:41 PM

Quote :

"The appropriations bill Obama signed should probably be included for him in 2009, but its chump change compared to the 3 trillion Bush laid out for that year."

Bush did not sign the 2009 budget. The 2009 budget was put together by a democrat controlled congress which knew from November to January when Obama signed said budget that they'd have a democrat in the whitehouse and budgeted accordingly. They never even offered a budget for bush to reject, so they clearly weren't budgeting for his approval.

So, no, I don't think Bush had anything to do with the 2009 Budget. Meanwhile, Obama was a Senator in Congress while the budget was being written and those writing it knew they'd need his approval come January.

But, sure, maybe Obama can't be blamed for the whole budget. But Bush certainly can't be blamed for any of it. What blame doesn't fall on Obama falls on Congressional Democrats which wrote the thing and got Obama to sign it.

7/23/2012 9:48:11 AM

You are only half right. Obama did end up signing the 2009 budget, but several appropriations were signed before then between October 2008 and January 2009 that dealt with the 2009 fiscal year. He had no control over those.

Bush DID submit a budget to congress for approval, it was the first 3 trillion dollar budget in US history. Even if it isn't the exact bill that Obama and congress passed, it was still formed the framework for 2009:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22981657/ns/politics/t/bushs-proposed-trillion-budget-biggest/

Bush requested 3.1 trillion in spending for 2009, and the total budget was only enacted for 3.5 trillion. So while Bush offered a few cuts, that democrats promptly ignored, in the big scheme of things it was a relatively minor amount.



Did you read the Mises, Forbes, and Cato links I posted? Those aren't exactly pro-obama media outlets, but even they have the integrity to point out a majority of the 2009 deficit wasn't Obama's fault.

7/23/2012 10:30:08 AM

Yes, cause $400 billion is just a drop in the bucket.

Allow me to quote myself again: "What blame doesn't fall on Obama falls on Congressional Democrats which wrote the thing and got Obama to sign it."

So, sure, the majority of the blame does not fall on President Obama. It falls on Congress, and Obama was a voting Senator which presumably voted in favor of said budgeting.

[Edited on July 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/23/2012 4:23:05 PM

i have no problem blaming congress for the far FAR majority of our country's fiscal woes

7/23/2012 4:28:09 PM

400 billion is a lot of money, but when you compare it next to the 3 trillion dollar budget it puts it in perspective.

How does Bush escape all blame? He was the one that originally submitted the spending request for fiscal year 2009, which totalled 3.1 trillion and was the framework for that years budget. Fiscal year 2009 starts in October 2008, Appropriation bills were signed before Obama was even sworn in.

Yes Congress is as much to blame as Presidents, but this is the Presidents and Federal Debt thread and historically Presidents get a lot of blame (obviously, whether deserved or not).

[Edited on July 23, 2012 at 4:50 PM. Reason : Did you read those links yet]

7/23/2012 4:49:40 PM

Anyone that's supported, proposed, or voted for deficit spending is to blame.

7/23/2012 4:52:07 PM

So Reagan, Bush, and Obama are mostly to blame?

7/23/2012 6:36:26 PM

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation?

7/23/2012 6:40:59 PM

Nope

7/23/2012 7:28:37 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Anyone that's supported, proposed, or voted for deficit spending is to blame."

Includes more than what you've listed. A lot more.

7/24/2012 8:12:51 AM

Quote :

"Bush did not sign the 2009 budget. The 2009 budget was put together by a democrat controlled congress which knew from November to January when Obama signed said budget that they'd have a democrat in the whitehouse and budgeted accordingly. They never even offered a budget for bush to reject, so they clearly weren't budgeting for his approval."

Bush submitted the original budget request, which had a deficit of $400 billion dollars before the Democrats even touched it. This was in January 2008, before the incoming financial crisis was apparent.

Quote :

"So, no, I don't think Bush had anything to do with the 2009 Budget."

That's because you're misinformed. There's also the whole aspect wherein Bush passed budgets for the 8 years prior, and they don't exactly start from scratch each year, each budget uses the prior year as a starting point, and Bush passed plenty of programs (And started plenty of wars, and passed plenty of tax cuts) that became binding commitments for years to come.

Quote :

" Meanwhile, Obama was a Senator in Congress while the budget was being written and those writing it knew they'd need his approval come January. But, sure, maybe Obama can't be blamed for the whole budget. But Bush certainly can't be blamed for any of it. What blame doesn't fall on Obama falls on Congressional Democrats which wrote the thing and got Obama to sign it."

Do you deliberately contort your mind into these bizarre configurations or were you just born twisted?



Wooo yeah, those bailouts are absolutely bankrupting us!

[Edited on July 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2012 11:21:08 AM

It is 2012. Why the hell are you using a graph based upon estimates from early 2009?

And yes, I blame Obama for not ending the wars, ending the bailouts, ending the stimulus, bailing out the states, and on it goes.

[Edited on July 24, 2012 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/24/2012 1:20:41 PM

obviously bush is still president since none of those things youve mentioned have been fixed.

7/24/2012 8:57:27 PM