Glenn Beck you lying sack of S%$*

Ahh, the subject changed I see....again. I'll follow the along and present some facts, as facts DO matter to some on these boards

Center for Applied Economic Development - Quality Rankings of Education in the Fifty States

The link is easy and quick to prove Mr Moen wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being caught making up stuff?

 

Nah! I am still trying to keep it on topic, but moen keeps trying to change it so he does not have to answer how BO's numbers are less than the rest of the presidents. However, he has been on here at least twice since my last post and said nothing. I guess he has conceded the point.

 

It's an entirely different study measuring entirely different characteristics and the only relation it has to the US census data I posted is that they both talk about different aspects of education. But this is nothing new for you and your best pals rlm and David. They play this game quite regularly. You are all so anxious to pounce on people you disagree with, that you spend a lot of time talking about “facts” as you perceive them, you talk about catch other people a lot, and you quite often mistake your opinions for facts.
Jack, you have really lowered your own bar. In spite of all the difficulties you’ve had recently, I will not be cutting you any breaks based upon posts like this one. If you choose to crawl around on your belly, don’t expect people not to treat you like a snake.

 

"Facts" that you disagree with? Therefore they are not facts. Good one. Goes well with "If you disregard the hypercritical Right wing, and I do, ......"

Now back to the topic for the last 25 or so posts, please show me any facts (even your version of "facts") that say BO has increased the national debt "less than George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, and Ronald Reagan. "

 

Ahhhh! Now you're not just talking about growth, you're actually talking about the growth of the national debt. You posted numbers that you claimed were from my data (wrong) and ignored the actual data I posted all while saying you never used the word growth. When I pointed out that you did used the word growth twice, you just plowed along again ignoring what couldn't admit to. I'm used to your combative exchanges so I was unsurprised once again. You seem to like to take a perfectly clear conversation and throw mud at it. Your problem is that you don't actually know much about the topics you're trying to have a say in, and it's obvious.

Anyway back to my data.
Total National Debt increase by President
Carter 42%
Reagan 189%
Bush Sr. 55.6%
Clinton 36%
Bush Jr. 89%
Obama (through 2010) 31%

No president has not added or grew the national debt but some grew it far more than others.

So which presidents actually increased the national debt (and that was what we were talking about) the most? I can't even fault Obama since he was handed two unfunded wars (kept off the books by Bush) and an economy that was in the worst shape since The Great Depression. At least Obama has a reason to grow the debt. He actually took Bush's wars and put them in the budget. What was Bush's excuse or Reagan's?

 

In business, as you well know, numbers like these are evaluated on both a percentage basis & dollar volume basis. While the percentage increase under BO may not be out of whack the debt load in shear dollar increase is staggering and getting near to be insurmountable.

 

Aren't you really just using a lot of pretty words to say pretty much nothing? Calling the national debt staggering and insurmountable is just an opinion more or less based on intangible Right wing talking points more than anything else. So when someone says that Barack Obama has exploded the nation debt above and beyond all other presidents combined as is often claimed by the Right, I have to chuckle at their naiveté or their Obama derangement syndrome more accurately.

 

Nice try there mr phd but I don't believe you are that stupid. Let's see here.....trillions of dollars vs comparative percentages? Hmmmmm

 

The problem with looking at numbers in raw dollars is that 1990 dollars are far different than 2010 dollars. At least percentages compare 1990 dollars to 1990 dollars.

 

My numbers were absolutely from your site. Just look at the year over year increases.

I guessed that might be where you were trying to go. Neither growth nor increase refer to percentage increase (or percentage growth, if you prefer). Even though that is a meaningless figure, you are still wrong. So in 2 years, BO has not increased the national debt, percentage wise, as much as Clinton did in 8 years. That figure is totally inane and anyone who thinks that number is worth looking at is, let's just say, mathematically challenged. Really. Just figure - the first president to borrow any money increased the national debt by infinity percent. DAH!!!

If you want to talk percent increase per year, that figure has some meaning. BO has the 5th and 6th highest percent increase on you table for only his 2 years. However, the meaningful comparator is the debt as a percent of the GDP. On that account, BO has no competition. In 8 years, Reagan only increased the national debt 19% (52.6 - 33.3) of GDP. BO has already increased the national debt 21% (95.1 - 74.1) of GDP and it only took him 2 years

 

Where did BO go? I wonder why he is not there!

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see! BTW, I seem top remember the dips complaining about Bush 2 increasing the nation debt too much.

 

There are none so pompous as YOU.

 

I think you tried to insult me. I will just remember the source. Still waiting for facts (even your version of "facts") that say BO has increased the national debt "less than George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, and Ronald Reagan."

 

I know of no source that you will believe since the one I posted isn't good enough because it is the case that you pointed out that there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Carter 42%
Reagan 189%
Bush Sr. 55.6%
Clinton 36%
Bush Jr. 89%
Obama 31%

Refute these numbers in any way you think you can. Or if you choose, you could just shut up and go away. My guess is you'll do your usual ignore tactic and keep blathering on.

 

I learned in elementary school that you cannot add, subtract, or compare percentages (with different bases) - and that does not even count 2 years versus 4 years versus 8 years. I hope Minnesota's schools have improved since you left there. I guess that is why you "disregard the hypercritical Right wing". They are so far over you understanding that you cannot comprehend what they are talking about.

 

Curiously, this just showed up in my mailbox;

 

I learned in my economics class that you can't compare dollar values across decades. Percentages is the only way get an accurate picture. Maybe you should have sought education past the elementary level Jethro. Still nothing to refute my numbers because you can't. They are spot on and exactly what I said they were when you claimed to have caught me in a lie...Right!

 

Percentages of a variable base are nothing but bs and that still has not accounted for the 2, 4, and 8 years terms. That is why I said that percentages of the GDP mean something. GDP automatically compensates for the dollar values (and population growth). Just to prove it to you, let's just say the Republican congress exceeds all expectations and manages to pay off all the debt in the this year, but BO has to borrow $10 (note, no B or T there. Not even an M or a K) next year. He would then have the largest "growth" (your definition, not mine) of any president ever. 10 / 0 = infinity (%). If you can explain that, then I will believe your numbers.

 

The way to dispute lies like this email you so willingly believe and don't even know the simplest way to fact check this nonsense. Think about it. Bush was in office 8 years. This nonsense claims that it was congress (democratically controlled after 2007) that was responsible for Bush's spending even though Bush has to submit a budget to congress for approval. That's not the point though, you have 6 previous years before the end of 2007 in which the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of congress. Now if the article was true, there shouldn't be an increase in those 6 years. Are you following me? Well! Low and behold, 6 straight years of increased spending AND wars that weren't even included in the budget. In Bush's final budget year, 2009, the last year Bush signed a budget for, he spent $700 billion on TARP and the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here is George Mason University’s assessment of spending under George Bush.
http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/WP0904_GAP_Spending Under President George W Bush.pdf