Read More: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72404

I wonder if the MSM will cover this........

What am I thinking!

__________________
Courtesy of Swissman

A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.

ANONYMOUS

Its not his money, so why should he care?

I heard that even Jimmy Carter sent a message to Obumble. It was two words" "YOU SUCK!"

Politifact seems to have addressed a version of this claim with a "barely true" designation: PolitiFact Georgia | Rogers blames President Obama for $3 trillion in debt

"While the numbers used by Rogers are generally correct, his calculation doesn't make sense. Rogers ignored critical facts about the economy and national debt that budget analysts of all stripes routinely take into account. Plus, he blamed Obama for debt he had little, if anything, to do with.

When those experts performed what they consider a more fair and accurate comparison, neither concluded that the debt Obama ran up is equal to the amount run up by this country during its first 200 years. Both came up with much lower figures."

but hey don't let facts get in your way

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Another post making apples to oranges comparison based on numbers unadjusted for inflation and without respect to a meaningful benchmark. In other words, totally useless information even if it were true, but it isn't.

First of all, U.S. debt increased 1.73 trillion in W's first term, and 2.63 trillion in his second term, for a total of 4.36 trillion in debt increase under Bush. So this post is an outright lie to begin with, even before comparing the numbers to a meaningful benchmark such as GDP or adjusting the numbers for inflation.

The claim was that Obama increased the debt more thus far into his presidency than every U.S. president since Washington combined. The TRUTH is that Bush alone has added more to the debt during his presidency than Obama has thus far (though BO will undoubtedly surpass both Bush's terms before the end of his first term).

The 2.9X trillion that Obama increased the debt in his first 19 months is less than the 4.36 trillion that Bush increased it by, so it can't possibly be more than that of every president since Washington combined. Of course those numbers are also not adjusted for inflation or compared to the GDP, if they were, Obama's borrowing (though excessive) would be even less excessive than it appears to be using just the raw numbers.

Unfortunately this chart doesn't total Obama's numbers because it only goes by presidential term and not fiscal year - so it makes precise comparison difficult.

However, you'll see that since 1945 the only republican presidents who were in charge during terms when our debt decreased (with respect to percentage of GDP) were Eisenhower and Nixon. Until Obama, the debt to GDP ratio actually decreased during every democratic administration, despite any increases in actual dollar amounts. In other words, during every democratic administration, our GDP grew at a faster rate than the rate of increase in debt - but during MOST republican administrations, debt increased at a greater rate than growth of the GDP.

Does that necessarily mean anything? No, as congress, not just the president has much to do with the budget (much of the credit for debt decreases under Clinton could be attributed to a republican congress). Additionally, decreases in debt during democratic administrations were likely do to tax increases more than anything (though GDP at those times did grow more rapidly).

Before he is done, Obama is going to make the record-breaking increases in debt under W seem modest, of that I have no doubt. In 19 months he's borrowed more than Bush did for aproximately the first 6 years of his presidency, and Obama still has more than 2 years to go even if he isn't re-elected. He'll be the only democrat in 60+ years to increase the debt to GDP ratio, unless his recovery and reinvestment plan works far better than even his own expectations.

Regardless, the post that started this thread is a blatant lie, and proof that Obama critics don't know $h!t about making valid economic comparisons, or telling the truth for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

__________________
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and religions." - Jlarsen

You might wanna take a look at the article again...

GWB (or his dad, for that matter) isn't in between GW and RR last I checked...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Oops, my bad, I didn't see that the claim that was made arbitrarily included only those presidents from Washington up to but not including RR, the first republican to start racking up debt at an insane pace - thus making this pointless claim true.

I read the title, and skipped the recap of the of the title in the body, and ASSumed that the claim was that Obama had already borrowed more than EVERY president before him.

Maybe the title of the article should have been:

"George W. Bush added more national debt than every other president in history combined, excluding his father"

Also pointless and true.

Might I ask what is significant about truncating the claim just prior to RR's presidency? Other than than the fact that if RR's contribution to the debt were included, the statement would be false?

There's no end to the number of truthful, but pointless statements that could be made using the same information.

We could say that Ronald Reagan added 28 times as much debt as did Harry Truman. But what exactly does that prove? NOTHING!

Regardless of how the claim in this ridiculous article was tailored, the majority of what I said in my previous statement still stands - comparing the raw numbers is meaningless, and when compared to GDP and adjusted for inflation, or GDP has grown more rapidly compared to our debt under EVERY democratic president except Obama (whose presidency is still underway), while under MOST republican presidents our GDP has grown less rapidly than our debt.

Historically, the true value of our debt has decreased under democrats and increased under republicans - but even that data is somewhat skewed because relative debt depends on two factors: spending and taxing, and democrats generally raise taxes which means the decrease in borrowing that occurs under democrats is likely only do to the fact that they collect more in taxes. But it does raise the possibility that increased government spending does cause growth in the GDP - though it doesn't prove it.

The only significance I can see in the original claim is that deficit spending was relatively low until RR took the reigns, then it took off like wildfire with him and every president since, D or R. Even then using the raw numbers rather than doing a fair comparison creates an illusion of deficit spending that is far more outrageous than it really is, and Obama is merely continuing a trend that started in 1980.

I do find it interesting that over 42.8% of our nations current debt can be attributed to the presidencies of two men, a father and son team with the last name of Bush. Once again, that's only using the raw numbers, so it may exaggerate the reality - but it is a truth nonetheless.

__________________
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and religions." - Jlarsen

The poblem with this is that you're not including the article's main point...which is TIME...

19 months...comparing it to Bush's full 1-or-2 terms is apples and oranges...

...On top of the fact that you're response to Obama's spending is Boooooooooosh...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

The article also fails to mention the fact that Obama inherited a unique financial situation, a "Once in 100 year crisis" (according to Alan Greenspan), an event which occurred or at least in large part occurred during his predecessor's administration.

Interesting you should mention time, as you are judging a man not on what he has accomplished (or ruined) in 4 or eight years, but merely after a span of 19 months and during a time of unique crisis that he could not have been responsible for as it mostly occurred prior to his being elected.

Is it fair to compare the debt Bush incurred in 8 years to the debt Obama has incurred in 19 months?

Is it possible that the rate of borrowing could decrease over the next 2.5 - 6.0 years of Obama's leadership?

Notice I said possible, I didn't say it was likely. But why don't we wait and see what Obama's total contribution is and adjust those numbers for inflation and compare them to the GDP before we judge Obama's performance relative to other presidents.

If, and granted it is a big IF, Obama's borrowing decreases and his recovery and reinvestment plan works even modestly or well, increasing our GDP - it is possible that our countries debt to GDP ratio could decrease or at least stabilize. It is also possible that his average annual increase to the debt could be lower at the end of 8 years than it currently is only 19 months into his first term, though unlikely, it is possible that his average annual increase to the debt (adjusted for inflation) could end up being less than that of his predecessor or any other presidents one might wish to compare him to, D or R.

We can wait until the end of his presidency, and then make an apples to apples comparison, rather than making the apples to oranges comparison of meaningless raw data that the article makes.

Once again, just comparing two unadjusted numbers is absolutely meaningless.

$13 trillion dollars is a lot of money, but it is ONLY 63% of our GDP (according to usdebtclock.org). That is like a household that earns $50,000 a year being $31,150 in debt. There are countries with more than double the debt to GDP ratio of the U.S., and I'm not talking about developing countries, I'm talking about other world powers. Financially we are not as bad off as many like to make it sound.

I'm I the only one that is tired of reactionaries freaking out at the mere sight of large numbers and acting as if the sky is falling?

__________________
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and religions." - Jlarsen

Let's compare Obama's deficit spending as a % of GDP to FDR's during the pre-war years you know the Great Depression. Here is a link to the article excerpted below.

Obama Defeats FDR (in Spending Other People?s Money) | CNSnews.com

"Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP."

Obama's deficits in percentage of GDP will be nearly double FDR's. Do you want to say the current situation is twice as severe as the Depression? There isn't evidence to support that notion.


On the contrary it's not just fair to compare the 2 President's spending, it's appropriate.

"So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP."

Because if Obama has his way we will be reduced to fiscal ruin.

This is the same approach that brought us Obamacare and financial deform, pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. Congress did and look how "wonderful" they turned out. Once the money is spent, it's gone. Our future generations will have to deal with the crushing debt load inheirited from the Dear Leader.

Ok, let's talk in terms of defict spending as a % of GDP.

If your not "freaking out" over Obama's spending spree, your not paying attention or your living in some fantasy where Obama cuts spending later on.
Let's see, how did RR's deficit spending work out?

"The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 -- and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States."

Less deficit spending than ODummy and he got results, peace and freedom for millions.

Not only are they comparing and estimated or expected number (which I would think would be impossible to do considering nobody knows if Obama will even be president for 4 or 8 years, or what the GDP will do during that time) against actual number, but they state that Obama won't surpass FDRs deficit spending, unless FDRs wartime spending is excluded. So, not only are they pretending to know the future about how long Obama will serve as president and what our GDP will be for that duration (and even how much we will spend as far as six and a half years into the future, but they are also cherry picking which portion of FDR's presidency they use for comparison - wow, that's mighty scientific. :rolleyes

Once again, assuming that their predictions for the rest of OB presidency are correct, and FDR's wartime borrowing is excluded from the calculations.


I guess significant is a fairly relative term. This one is debatable... and also relies on estimated spending for a term of unknown length and also a prediction as to what the GDP will do. Basically a comparison between a made up number and one that actually exists.

So, RR got us peace and security and all that for 6% against the GDP... what did Bush get us for 20%?

__________________
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and religions." - Jlarsen