If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Crooks & Liars)   The Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush. And if you stop reading right there, you'll have a pretty good fw:fw:fw:fw email from your nutty uncle   (crooksandliars.com) divider line 73
    More: Followup, President Obama, Mark Knoller, CBS Radio, national debt, missing link, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

4464 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2012 at 12:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-21 10:02:13 AM  
repeat from yesteday
 
2012-03-21 10:03:52 AM  

mrshowrules: repeat from yesteday


Not submitter, but this is more of a followup to yesterday.
 
2012-03-21 10:15:04 AM  

mrshowrules: repeat from yesteday


this corrects the misinformation in the original submission.
 
2012-03-21 10:22:05 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: repeat from yesteday

Not submitter, but this is more of a followup to yesterday.


I see. Neither article is very good and they both oversimplifying toward their bias. However, I do agree at minimum, you should look at the budgets they signed, not just when they were President.

Percentage of the increase in dollars themselves is misleading. Heck, technically Bush increased the deficit by infinity%.

What should be compared is trends in deficits/spending as a percentage of % GDP.

Same as employment. Who increased the rate of job loss and who decreased it and had job creation, not the unemployment rate itself.
 
2012-03-21 10:51:57 AM  
Kitty has claws.
 
2012-03-21 11:54:11 AM  
Email from my father quoting the "fact" and not the truth in 3...2...1...
 
2012-03-21 12:12:53 PM  
Whoever heard of increasing deficit spending to avoid a depression in a financial crisis?!?!?!?

Impeach fartbama!!eleventy
 
2012-03-21 12:14:10 PM  
Oh give the trolls a place to jerk off, this keeps them out of the other threads for hours.

PS, Bush created a huge sink-hole of debt and if you think otherwise you have an IQ of 7
 
2012-03-21 12:15:01 PM  
STOP SENDING ME THIS E-MAILS DAD!
 
2012-03-21 12:16:49 PM  
The Bush recession is Obama's fault. Let's elect a Republican president to fix it.
 
2012-03-21 12:20:29 PM  
It's almost like there is some kind of recession going on and we are fighting it along wars on the other side of the globe with tax cuts and increased spending.
 
2012-03-21 12:22:38 PM  

mrshowrules: Percentage of the increase in dollars themselves is misleading. Heck, technically Bush increased the deficit by infinity%.

What should be compared is trends in deficits/spending as a percentage of % GDP.


One of the best ways of comparing administration policies is the change in government spending. Compared to other recent presidents, Obama has NOT been a big spender:

talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2012-03-21 12:24:38 PM  
Funny, ever since I pointed out to those family members that forwarded me crazy emails like this that they should 1) do some farking research before sending me such drivel, and 2) that they should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating easily debunked lies.

The emails stopped.

I'm sure they still forward them to other family members, but I've been spared.

Next we'll here about how Obama is apologizing yet again to some random developing country. Maybe Burkina Faso this time?
 
2012-03-21 12:25:18 PM  
This article makes no sense.

"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office."

why does the author even mention starting points? 15 - 11 is 4. 11 - 5.7 is 5.3

He obviously just disagrees with the numbers
 
2012-03-21 12:25:55 PM  
Yeh, but Bush accomplished that with 5% unemployment and an economic "boom". If you believe tax cuts raise revenue, then you probably also think this wasn't indicative of a major disaster.
 
2012-03-21 12:28:17 PM  
Can't wait to see this fwd fwd in 2 years when my uncle finally receives it and sends it to me. Assuming fartbongo is still the president.
 
2012-03-21 12:31:04 PM  
That's an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.


Uh, so this is an amazingly dishonest way to compare the two. Bush went from (approx) 5-10 so that means Obama gets 10-20 to be equal? Bullshiat. I'm fine with normalizing to GDP and sticking the Bush's medicare D and wars debt he kept off the books on Obama is bullshiat too. But this percent increase in debt comparison is really farking bad.
 
2012-03-21 12:33:21 PM  
I really don't understand the need for comparing numbers. Obama has faced a recession for his entire first term. Maybe that has something to do with the increased spending? Who cares what the percentages are?
 
2012-03-21 12:34:34 PM  

FlashHarry: mrshowrules: repeat from yesteday

this corrects the misinformation in the original submission.


Not really. It just measures debt another way. C&L uses % and the original submission used actual $. Two different metrics to measure debt. It does not correct or disprove anything.
 
2012-03-21 12:36:02 PM  

lennavan: That's an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.

Uh, so this is an amazingly dishonest way to compare the two. Bush went from (approx) 5-10 so that means Obama gets 10-20 to be equal? Bullshiat. I'm fine with normalizing to GDP and sticking the Bush's medicare D and wars debt he kept off the books on Obama is bullshiat too. But this percent increase in debt comparison is really farking bad.


Also, Bush was in office for two terms compared to Obama's not-yet-one.
 
2012-03-21 12:38:19 PM  
Crooks and Liars, your blog sucks.
 
2012-03-21 12:38:30 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Yeh, but Bush accomplished that with 5% unemployment and an economic "boom". If you believe tax cuts raise revenue, then you probably also think this wasn't indicative of a major disaster.


Actaully, revenues did increase after the tax cuts. It was not until the economic meltdown that revenues fell off a cliff.
 
2012-03-21 12:43:11 PM  
The Debt! The Debt!
DERPITY, derpity, DERP!

/DERP
//Derpity
///Don't let the debt parrot roost in your ass.
 
2012-03-21 12:44:41 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Yeh, but Bush accomplished that with 5% unemployment and an economic "boom". If you believe tax cuts raise revenue, then you probably also think this wasn't indicative of a major disaster.


Your handle first registered in my head as "Goody Ear Pimp."

/that is all
 
2012-03-21 12:45:39 PM  
Oh cool are we doing this thread again? The one where we puff up our chests and say well the original article was TECHNICALLY completely correct, I mean if you utterly ignore what the author was implying

(I use the term "we" loosely here)
 
2012-03-21 12:45:41 PM  

HeadLever: GoodyearPimp: Yeh, but Bush accomplished that with 5% unemployment and an economic "boom". If you believe tax cuts raise revenue, then you probably also think this wasn't indicative of a major disaster.

Actaully, revenues did increase after the tax cuts. It was not until the economic meltdown that revenues fell off a cliff.


But then we get into the argument of whether the tax cuts caused the economic growth, or the rebound in growth after the DotCom Bubble burst induced recession ended.
 
2012-03-21 12:46:37 PM  

Imperialism: lennavan: That's an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.

Uh, so this is an amazingly dishonest way to compare the two. Bush went from (approx) 5-10 so that means Obama gets 10-20 to be equal? Bullshiat. I'm fine with normalizing to GDP and sticking the Bush's medicare D and wars debt he kept off the books on Obama is bullshiat too. But this percent increase in debt comparison is really farking bad.

Also, Bush was in office for two terms compared to Obama's not-yet-one.


Meh, I'm okay with that comparison, that was kinda the whole point he attempted (and failed) to make. That Obama has done as much debt in 3 as Bush did in 8.
 
2012-03-21 12:47:10 PM  

lennavan: That's an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.

Uh, so this is an amazingly dishonest way to compare the two. Bush went from (approx) 5-10 so that means Obama gets 10-20 to be equal? Bullshiat. I'm fine with normalizing to GDP and sticking the Bush's medicare D and wars debt he kept off the books on Obama is bullshiat too. But this percent increase in debt comparison is really farking bad.


Came here to say something resembling this.
 
2012-03-21 12:47:10 PM  

eraser8: mrshowrules: Percentage of the increase in dollars themselves is misleading. Heck, technically Bush increased the deficit by infinity%.

What should be compared is trends in deficits/spending as a percentage of % GDP.

One of the best ways of comparing administration policies is the change in government spending. Compared to other recent presidents, Obama has NOT been a big spender:


So Obama being equal to bush in spending is good? Lol. What a retarded measurement. You basically saying bush equals Obama on the economy. Didn't bush crash it according to libs? Are you suggesting we run trillion dollar deficits forever? That is what you implied since the next president would have near 0% change.

What a retarded thought.
 
2012-03-21 12:48:24 PM  
So you are saying it is true as a distinct number and that Obama is well on track to meeting Bush's total % increase if given another term? Wow, thanks C&L for clearing that up.
 
2012-03-21 12:48:46 PM  

HeadLever: Actaully, revenues did increase after the tax cuts. It was not until the economic meltdown that revenues fell off a cliff.


Not immediately after the tax cuts. Revenues first went down...but, they eventually recovered, as they always do -- if for no other reason than inflation. Still, revenue would have been even higher had the tax cuts not been implemented in the first place.

Also, keep in mind that much of the increase in revenue came from corporate taxes...which weren't subject to a major policy change. Corporations simply increased their profits, which increased the amount due to the Treasury.
 
2012-03-21 12:49:33 PM  

lennavan: That's an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.

Uh, so this is an amazingly dishonest way to compare the two. Bush went from (approx) 5-10 so that means Obama gets 10-20 to be equal? Bullshiat. I'm fine with normalizing to GDP and sticking the Bush's medicare D and wars debt he kept off the books on Obama is bullshiat too. But this percent increase in debt comparison is really farking bad.


Medicare d and wars were never off the debt numbers. Ever. They were off budget.
 
2012-03-21 12:51:36 PM  

MyRandomName: So Obama being equal to bush in spending is good?


You're a special kind of stupid.

Look at the chart. Obama is not "equal" to Bush in spending.

The rate of government increase under Bush was far, far higher than the rate under Obama (which is, basically, flat).

The closest president to Obama in that chart is Clinton.
 
2012-03-21 12:52:16 PM  

lennavan: That's an increase of 89 percent.

Under Obama, the debt has increased from about $11T to about $15T, about 40 percent.

Uh, so this is an amazingly dishonest way to compare the two. Bush went from (approx) 5-10 so that means Obama gets 10-20 to be equal? Bullshiat. I'm fine with normalizing to GDP and sticking the Bush's medicare D and wars debt he kept off the books on Obama is bullshiat too. But this percent increase in debt comparison is really farking bad.


Exactly this. It's clearly the case that different circumstances led to the annual deficits at different times, GDP normalization would clearly reverse the effect (and inflation adjustment would likely do the same), etc. A good article would make these points; a colossally stupid article argues that 4.939 is not greater than 4.899.
 
2012-03-21 12:52:22 PM  

meat0918: HeadLever: GoodyearPimp: Yeh, but Bush accomplished that with 5% unemployment and an economic "boom". If you believe tax cuts raise revenue, then you probably also think this wasn't indicative of a major disaster.

Actaully, revenues did increase after the tax cuts. It was not until the economic meltdown that revenues fell off a cliff.

But then we get into the argument of whether the tax cuts caused the economic growth, or the rebound in growth after the DotCom Bubble burst induced recession ended.


Correct. In addition, we even get to argue if the revenue generation would have been bigger sans tax cut.

In any case, revenues did increase. However, they could have likely been bigger.
 
2012-03-21 12:52:49 PM  
The problem can be seen right here in this thread. Republicans blame Obama, Democrats blame Bush, but neither side is willing to address the problems. Both sides completely ignore the coming crapfest Medicare (and Social Security) is going to rain down on us over the next 30 years, and our immediate problem of holding greater than 100% of GDP in debt.

Running the tax rate to 100% on the top 1% wouldn't even close this year's budget deficit, and that even believes that there is no Laffer curve. If the government guarantees all debts, then I don't see how my generation can pay for my parent's and grandparent's excess. Tax rates on everyone will need to go up.

If we want to allow our government to spend money like they are currently doing, then taxes should be on the generation that is doing the spending instead of having their children pick up the tab for them. The way we pay for government makes all this spending look like it is coming from some magic money volcano; what happens when the tab comes due?

What is the solution? I swear my parents believe that the rapture makes all this spending moot because well they are effing crazy. For us godless heathens who don't believe in the rapture, what solution do we really have?
 
2012-03-21 12:53:11 PM  

MyRandomName: blah blah blah


God you're boring. How did I never get around to ignoring you until now?

/plonk
 
2012-03-21 12:53:47 PM  
I just LOVE the name Fartbama!
 
2012-03-21 12:54:50 PM  

eraser8: Not immediately after the tax cuts.


Technially, it depends upon what tax cuts you measure from. The first round of Bush Tax Cuts were relatively small and was enacted in 2001. If you measure from here, you would be correct. The bigger round of tax cuts was completed in 2003. If you measure from this point, revenues were increasing.
 
2012-03-21 12:56:14 PM  

MyRandomName: So Obama being equal to bush in spending is good? Lol. What a retarded measurement.


He's right, you should be doing it as a percent of GDP. A millionaire with a credit card bill of $1000 is a bit different than someone on minimum wage with a credit card bill of $1000.

That said, no Obama being equal or near to Bush is not good. It's farking terrible. Before Bush was POTUS, we had a big debate as a country about what to do with the budget SURPLUS. It sure would be nice to return to those days. Maybe this time the clear winner will be to pay down the debt.

MyRandomName: Are you suggesting we run trillion dollar deficits forever?


Nope. Sure would be nice to see some enormous cuts to unnecessary things like the military as well as increased revenues from people who can afford higher taxes, wouldn't it?
 
2012-03-21 12:56:27 PM  
Has anyone mentioned that this article compares 8 years of Bush to 3 years of Obama......


I think this article and the article its trying to counter are both full of shiat.


/you may now go back to gobbling your teams cock
 
2012-03-21 12:58:06 PM  
"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office."

So, according the TFA, this is accurate.

/Farking numbers, how do they work?
 
2012-03-21 01:02:56 PM  

Tannax: Both sides completely ignore the coming crapfest Medicare (and Social Security) is going to rain down on us over the next 30 years, and our immediate problem of holding greater than 100% of GDP in debt.


No. "Both" sides don't

In a development with potentially profound implications - both for Medicare itself and for the broader ideological fight between the two parties over the role of government - researchers writing in the New England Journal of Medicine believe that the growth in per patient Medicare costs has slowed, contra earlier projections that spending would soar at an unsustainable rate. More importantly, the researchers believe this trend will hold over time, thanks largely to the Affordable Care Act's sweeping cost-control policies.


To be fair, it is not clear whether or not this is a long-term trend, but it WAS one of the Democratic arguments for the ACA. Just because all most people remember is a argument about "mandates" and "death panels" doesn't mean no one was thinking about this stuff. It really just points to the effectiveness of the PR efforts by critics of the bill.
 
2012-03-21 01:04:17 PM  
Crooks and Liars, sounds a lot like Hope and Change.
 
2012-03-21 01:15:28 PM  

lennavan: He's right, you should be doing it as a percent of GDP. A millionaire with a credit card bill of $1000 is a bit different than someone on minimum wage with a credit card bill of $1000.


That might not be the best stand-alone statistic either, though. We're supposed to spend a lot more during an economic slump than during a boom. Saying "President X spent Y% of the GDP, and President A spent B%, and B>Y so A is a worse president" ignores the economic theory.

I'm not sure I even like the comparison on spending to begin with, outside of pointing out the hypocrisy of folks who weren't worried about deficits when their guy was in charge and making the Deciderings.

The government should be increasing/decreasing spending in reaction to economic pressures, not out of a simplistic ideology that debt is bad.
 
2012-03-21 01:20:08 PM  
So are the tax cuts working yet?
 
2012-03-21 01:34:24 PM  

palelizard: That might not be the best stand-alone statistic either, though. We're supposed to spend a lot more during an economic slump than during a boom.


Well yeah, I agree. But that's on a different point. We're asking the question who spent more. You're asking the question who spent their money more wisely. I think your question is significantly more important but still, a different point to make.

palelizard: I'm not sure I even like the comparison on spending to begin with, outside of pointing out the hypocrisy of folks who weren't worried about deficits when their guy was in charge and making the Deciderings.


Same here. I much prefer your argument above than the one being discussed. When people talk about the deficit and the debt the assumption seems to be all debt is the same.

If I charge $50 to my credit card for a video game, that's a bit different than charging $50 to my credit card for bread, milk and eggs. Republicans get this when discussing welfare but seem to throw it out the window when it comes to the debt.
 
2012-03-21 01:35:30 PM  

meat0918: Funny, ever since I pointed out to those family members that forwarded me crazy emails like this that they should 1) do some farking research before sending me such drivel, and 2) that they should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating easily debunked lies.

The emails stopped.

I'm sure they still forward them to other family members, but I've been spared.


That would be nice, but at this point I have to just deal w/it because it is my father and that's what you do when it's your dad.
 
2012-03-21 01:38:19 PM  

meat0918: Next we'll here about how Obama is apologizing yet again to some random developing country. Maybe Burkina Faso this time?


i41.tinypic.com

End user certificate for this aircraft states Burkina Faso. Nice. Very nice. Did you type that by yourself?
 
2012-03-21 01:40:05 PM  

bgddy24601: meat0918: Funny, ever since I pointed out to those family members that forwarded me crazy emails like this that they should 1) do some farking research before sending me such drivel, and 2) that they should be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating easily debunked lies.

The emails stopped.

I'm sure they still forward them to other family members, but I've been spared.

That would be nice, but at this point I have to just deal w/it because it is my father and that's what you do when it's your dad.


My father is a survivalist, but I think he's convinced that forwarding emails places you in some government database, so he doesn't forward them.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report