Which President of the United States increased the debt the most since 1980? Source: The US Treasury

[Codybeast]

Not into politics and certainly not an Obama fan anymore but the facts speak for themselves.

[eahand]

.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by Codybeast

Not into politics and certainly not an Obama fan anymore but the facts speak for themselves.

O.K., I'll play

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -Winston Churchill

1. The U.S. Treasury didn't make up that fun little graph. It was posted by "Move On.org" a leftist mouthpiece that is known for distorting any and all data to suit their liberal agenda. The chart was actually created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
A simple fact check prior to posting would have led you to this story by the Washington Post explaining how bogus that chart really is. Here's the link to that story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0Y6K_blog.html

Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush.

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points

GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points

Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points

GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points

Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points

Here's some other interpretations of what others think the "U.S. Treasury" numbers show:

a)The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...04-503544.html

As you can see, the above is a quote from a CBS news story, CBS certainly isn't known as a far right mouthpiece. In fact, it's known as quite the opposite.

As the saying goes....there's lies, damned lies and statistics.

These days, it's tough to figure out the difference.

[Billy_Saul]

Old figures. Debt now well exceeds 15 Trillion.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Old figures. Debt now well exceeds 15 Trillion.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

LOL, right you are Billy_Saul, that's why it stated in the WP story that the GDP figures used were as of June 2011. Which just shows you how fast Obama can spend nearly a half trillion dollars.

[RALPHEY BOY]

that graph is joke...

Reagan had to bail out Carters mess and G W had to bail out Clintons mess of forcing down bad loans to Fannie and Freddie...

[BigGerman]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Here's why looking at debt as a percentage of any number is worthless. You don't get to pay back percentage points on debt; you have to pay actual dollars. Here's a little example:

Suppose I'm President, and the national debt is $2 (keeping numbers small just to illustrate the point). While I'm president, I borrow $2, and raise the debt to $4, or a 100% increase. Suppose my predecessor comes in, and borrows $3. He's now increased the debt 75%.

Who did worse? I don't think anyone would argue that the guy that came after me did worse, because he borrowed more money.

[undercover1]

Ralphy......That's entirely wrong about GW having to bail out Clinton! We had successive years of budget SURPLUSES prior to GW coming and destroying the economy. Not to mention his huge expansion of government with the creation of Homeland Security and the explosion of medical service costs not seen since the inception of medicare when he created the seniors drug plan! Just the cost of the wars alone, by choice..not necessity, exceeded the costs of Fannie and Freddie which you alluded to as being Clinton's baby. The republicans in congress were just as responsible for what happened in the housing fiasco as the democrats.

The question was worded wrong to begin with. Presidents don't spend the money or create the budget. They also don't appropriate money. That's the job of congress. Also noteworthy, they don't raise the debt ceiling as well. Congress is body responsibile for all these things.

With that in mind..let's re-examine under which presidents' tenure did the debt increase the most...and which party was in control of congress at the time. That's where the real responsibility should lie. Even then it's still misleading. For example...the dems would dearly love to raise taxes to decrease the debt..but the republicans in control of the House wouldn't even consider that. Therefore, both parties in this congress are to blame for the increasing debt because both parties were equally responsible for the 2011 budget.

Just going off the top of my head; I believe the republicans controlled both houses during Reagan's years, they controlled both houses during GH Bush, the dems controlled both houses for 4 of the 8 Clinton yrs and the republicans controlled both houses for 6 of the 8 GW years.

Again, I said that was off the top of my head, but it appears the republicans had far more control of the budget than the democrats for the past 30 years. Therefore, if my memory serves me correctly, the repulbicans are the far bigger spenders and can't seem to keep a budget under control!

[RALPHEY BOY]

Originally Posted by undercover1

Ralphy......That's entirely wrong about GW having to bail out Clinton! We had successive years of budget SURPLUSES prior to GW coming and destroying the economy. Not to mention his huge expansion of government with the creation of Homeland Security and the explosion of medical service costs not seen since the inception of medicare when he created the seniors drug plan! Just the cost of the wars alone, by choice..not necessity, exceeded the costs of Fannie and Freddie which you alluded to as being Clinton's baby. The republicans in congress were just as responsible for what happened in the housing fiasco as the democrats

I am not going to argue this point on Clinton and mortgages with you, PERIOD!!
both parties are to blame in the long run....but..Clinton had biggest hand in it
you can continue to drink the Ideology Kool Aid of the Democratic Platform, or you try to see the truth...

and I am not wrong at all!! you need to go and do more homework before you make such bold statements...

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...t-touched.html



The entire Democrat Party hardest hit:

[In 1994] the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies...

...The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults...

Lenders -- faced with ten federal regulatory bodies, the Attorney General, the President and the HUD Secretary -- quickly fell into line.

[They] threw such a scare into the industry that the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

HUD also pushed Fannie and Freddie, which in effect set industry underwriting standards, to buy subprime mortgages, freeing lenders to originate even more high-risk loans.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Barack Obama can blame George W. Bush, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Carmen Electra for the housing crisis. But the real culprits were the social engineers, criminals and cronies in the Clinton administration.

[undercover1]

Ralphey...for someone who didn't want to argue a point..you sure posted a lot of republican propaganda.

[telos]

A much simpler perspective.
Lesson # 1:
U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000


Let's now remove eight zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385

Got It?

[Codybeast]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

O.K., I'll play

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -Winston Churchill

1. The U.S. Treasury didn't make up that fun little graph. It was posted by "Move On.org" a leftist mouthpiece that is known for distorting any and all data to suit their liberal agenda. The chart was actually created by the office of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
A simple fact check prior to posting would have led you to this story by the Washington Post explaining how bogus that chart really is. Here's the link to that story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0Y6K_blog.html

Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post story:

If the chart were recast to show how much the debt went up as a percentage of GDP, it would look pretty bad for Obama after not even three years in office. In fact, Obama does almost twice as poorly as Reagan — and four times worse than George W. Bush.

Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points

GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points

Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points

GW Bush: plus 5.6 percentage points

Obama: plus 24.6 percentage points

Here's some other interpretations of what others think the "U.S. Treasury" numbers show:

a)The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...04-503544.html

As you can see, the above is a quote from a CBS news story, CBS certainly isn't known as a far right mouthpiece. In fact, it's known as quite the opposite.

As the saying goes....there's lies, damned lies and statistics.

These days, it's tough to figure out the difference.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll pass the the info along to the individual who sent it to me.

[RALPHEY BOY]

Originally Posted by undercover1

Ralphey...for someone who didn't want to argue a point..you sure posted a lot of republican propaganda.

far from it,, I am not a Republican,

go back and read my post... Dems and Reps had a hand in this mess...

however Clinton was the Bus driver!!!
SubPrime loans were already in the market years before Bush was even elected!!

and go to this site

http://ml-implode.com

read every single article like I have for the past 6 years and report back

[BigGerman]

When you're spending exceeds your revenue by 75%, you don't have a revenue problem; YOU HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. There is no way anyone can increase taxes to cover that gap without making huge cuts in spending.