JEB BUSH TRIES TO "PULL THE WOOL" OVER THE GOP SHAKERS.....

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by bigtex

LLIdiot, apparently you did not read the apples and oranges comparison you provided very closely. Then again, you probably read only what you wanted to read!

According to the article you provided, the two highest percentage increases (since WW II to the debt level of the predecessor) were done by Reagan and the Incompetent Shrub, (186% and (101%) respectively.

Obama is currently at 52%, with two years remaining. It should be noted that both Obama and Clinton were significantly less than Reagan and both Bushes. GHWB was only a 54% increase but he only served one term, the rest were two term Presidents.

+1,000

LL is back to the practice of selective reading. He read the first couple of paragraphs from his link and then stopped. He didn't even notice the title of his own link.

U.S. Debt by President

Why the Winner Is...Barack Obama

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by WTF

Relying on OMB data, the public debt grew under Reagan – who promised as a candidate to balance the federal budget – by 186%. He is, by any fair measure, the Father of the Modern Deficit – among modern presidents, Reagan fundamentally changed the way in which federal officials approached the nation’s finances. When it comes to deficits as a percentage of GDP, Reagan also ranks last among all modern presidents.

+1,000

The 186% number is the same number the author of this link has for Reagan. This was the link that was provided by LL in post 43.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebt...-President.htm

[lustylad]

How many times do I need to repeat myself to The 3 Stooges - flighty, littledix and WTFagboy?

It makes no sense to look at percentage increases in analyzing the national debt under various Presidents. Think about it, morons. Which is worse - tripling a small number or doubling a big number? You can't tell, can you?

And speaking of "selective reading" - the link says FDR and Woodrow Wilson were much more irresponsible debt mongers than Reagan or Bush, at least using your silly yardstick:

"President Roosevelt increased the debt the most percentage-wise. Although he only added $236 billion, this was more than a 1,000% increase over the $23 billion debt level left by President Hoover's last budget."

"President Wilson was the second largest contributor to the debt percentage-wise. Although he only added $21 billion, this was a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt level of his predecessor."

Based on the percentage increases, does this mean FDR was six times worse than Reagan in managing the nation's finances? Was Woodrow Wilson four times worse than Reagan? If not, wanna tell us again why we should conclude anything from the stupid bar chart?

.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by lustylad

How many times do I need to repeat myself

Probably until you finally get it right!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by lustylad

How many times do I need to repeat myself to The 3 Stooges - flighty, littledix and WTFagboy?

It makes no sense to look at percentage increases in analyzing the national debt under various Presidents. Think about it, morons. Which is worse - tripling a small number or doubling a big number? You can't tell, can you?

You must be new here but you've gotten the jist of the Hanson brothers. The other hilarious thing is how they would applaud Obama for the decline in spending but give no credit to the "TEA Wipes" or the sequester they brought up before they denied it before they kinda embraced it.




Taking a page out of WDF's tiny playboy and attributing a strawman to him: The decline in Federal Debt is tied directly to the number of Ebola patients!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It makes no sense to look at percentage increases in analyzing the national debt under various Presidents. Think about it, morons. Which is worse - tripling a small number or doubling a big number? You can't tell, can you?



.

If you compare the price of a home in 1984 and the exact same home in 2014 ..... How else but using % are you going to compare? Reagan increased the debt of the household 3 times more than Obama has to date. Of course after thirty years the price of things have increased! Jesus. ..i thought you understood the time/money concept!

Reagan still got his dick shoved up your Tea'billy ass!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

How many times do I need to repeat myself to The 3 Stooges - flighty, littledix and WTFagboy?
.

Why would anybody pay attention to anything you say, Junior? Especially when it's so politely written?

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Why would anybody pay attention to anything you say, Junior? Especially when it's so politely written?

Look you eletist moron. You have no fucking right to question anyone on being polite ! You are a quibbling little maggot RACIST. You put down people that you can agree with simply because they are of different color than yourself. You are two-faced, lying hypocrite. I say, go fuck yourself !

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

If not, wanna tell us again why we should conclude anything from the stupid bar chart?

.

The author of the link provided by LL answers your question. Just click on the "compare the depth" link. She goes into quite a bit of detail as to why Supply side economics is dishonest.
What's the best way to determine how much of the nearly $18 trillion U.S. debt is attributable to each President? The most popular way is to look at the debt level when each President took office. Sometimes it's easier to look at a graph showing the percent of the debt accumulated under each President. It's also important to compare the debt as a percent of economic output.

Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush’s last two budget years. Obama’s debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. (Bush was responsible for the turn-around from surplus to deficit soon after he took office, but not for the impact of the recession on the budget.) Nonetheless, Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?
The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebt...-President.htm

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

...How else but using % are you going to compare? Reagan increased the debt of the household 3 times more than Obama has to date.

By your own flawed and simplistic yardstick, FDR was 6 times worse and Woodrow Wilson was 4 times worse than Reagan.

So where is your bitching and moaning about FDR and Wilson? You should be posting ten times (that's 6+4) as much about their irresponsible debt management as you do about Ronnie, fagboy.

"How else... are you going to compare?" I already told you, idiot! Pay attention, read and learn!

Originally Posted by lustylad

The only yardstick that makes sense in viewing the national debt is to track it as a percentage of our GDP.

Under Reagan, the gross national debt increased from 32% to 49% of GDP. Under Obama to date, it has swelled from 68% to over 100% of GDP.

.

[CuteOldGuy]

As long as the debt goes up, the coming crash gets worse. That's what's real.

[lustylad]

Not necessarily COG. Go back and read my post #58. The debt kept going up after WW2 - it doubled over the next 30 years - and it didn't set us up for a crash, because the overall economy grew much faster than the debt during this period.

I point this out even though I think the federal government is the most wasteful, spendthrift and slovenly beast on the planet, and we need to cut, gut and eliminate as many failed libtard spending programs as possible. I am not a tea party guy but you won't hear me complain when they demand fiscal responsibility.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

eliminate as many failed libtard spending programs as possible. y.

Read Ike's going away speech and see if he was warning about a libtard program...Jan 17 1961

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Nobody has been able to explain this one yet.

Anybody?

[WTF]

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.
So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?
The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.