Obama Added $7.917 Trillion to the National Debt, 68 Percent Spike

[Akka]

That seems to already be pretty substantial.

Depends on how much they own. If they have (no idea if it's the case, just illustrating the point) 75 % of the wealth of the country, then paying only 45 % means they pay much LESS than they should.

And don't forget that they should actually pay proportionally MORE than the raw share of wealth they own - because a much higher part of their money is above the treshold for living - someone who earn 1000 bucks and need 800 to pay for his basic needs, has in actual disposable wealth barely 200 bucks, while someone who earn 5000 and pay even 3000 for his needs, has 2000 disposable wealth (so he has ten times more while earning only five times more, and that's with being generous and considering he has "basic needs" nearly four times more expensive).

[Deleted]

Thanks Obama?

[Taneras]

Percentage-wise, he hasn't. Number-wise, he has. Percentage is what matters. The actual value doesn't. He didn't increase the national debt nearly as much as Bush did as he left office.

What sort of logic is this? You're allowing each presidential term to screw up the budget even more because you're giving allowances of larger and larger percentages every year.

At this rate (~70% every 8 years) we'll be at 100 trillion in 24 years.

20 trillion now.
34 trillion in 8 years (70% increase from now)
57.8 trillion in 16 years (70% increase from the 34 trillion)
98.26 trillion in 24 years (70% increase from the 57.8 trillion).

But it'll all be ok, because its all about percentages. Right?

[Draco-Onis]

What sort of logic is this? You're allowing each presidential term to screw up the budget even more because you're giving allowances of larger and larger percentages every year.

At this rate (~70% every 8 years) we'll be at 100 trillion in 24 years.

20 trillion now.
34 trillion in 8 years (70% increase from now)
57.8 trillion in 16 years (70% increase from the 34 trillion)
98.26 trillion in 24 years (70% increase from the 57.8 trillion).

But it'll all be ok, because its all about percentages. Right?

Are you expecting a financial crisis and a near global collapse every 8 years? It is a comparison versus other presidents, each president has their set of circumstances and 2008 is a pretty good reason to spend. Now you can argue the merits of some of what we spent that money on but the fact is austerity wouldn't have gotten us out of the hole we were in.

[Barnabas]

One third of that is peoples retirements. So it will continue to go up and up and up regardless of who's president unless they can come up with a way to fuck everyone over making the debt worthless?

[Taneras]

Are you expecting a financial crisis and a near global collapse every 8 years?

No, I'm just stating that basing it on percentages allows each administration to mismanage the budget even more.

It is a comparison versus other presidents...

Sure, and its a bad one.

[Endus]

What sort of logic is this? You're allowing each presidential term to screw up the budget even more because you're giving allowances of larger and larger percentages every year.

At this rate (~70% every 8 years) we'll be at 100 trillion in 24 years.

20 trillion now.
34 trillion in 8 years (70% increase from now)
57.8 trillion in 16 years (70% increase from the 34 trillion)
98.26 trillion in 24 years (70% increase from the 57.8 trillion).

But it'll all be ok, because its all about percentages. Right?

Considering inflation works the same way, yes. Pretty much. Borrowing (to use an example) $100 million in 1998 dollars and paying it back in 2016 dollars is a net gain.

That's an oversimplification, but holding debt doesn't mean the budget is broken.

[Taneras]

Considering inflation works the same way, yes. Pretty much. Borrowing (to use an example) $100 million in 1998 dollars and paying it back in 2016 dollars is a net gain.

In the same way, yes, but no at the same rates. I should have been more specific with my critique. Just because other presidents have increased the debt by a larger percent, 70% is still not acceptable every 8 years.

[Endus]

In the same way, yes, but no at the same rates. I should have been more specific with my critique. Just because other presidents have increased the debt by a larger percent, 70% is still not acceptable every 8 years.

It's also not spectacularly bad, given the recession that Obama had to cope with and the spending that got the economy through it.

That 2% or so inflation per year works out to nearly 20% inflation over the 8 years in question. It's not a small amount.

And really, there's one solution to high government debts. Tax more, spend less. If you think spending should be reduced, start pointing to plans you, specifically, benefit from but think should be removed. No fair pointing at programs other people benefit from, but not yourself, because that's just self-interest. And how much more federal tax are you willing to pay, to achieve this goal?

[Felya]

Bawney fwank wasnt in power. The republicans were in the majority. Somehow along with ignoring wall street you also fail to ignore the republicans had a majority under the hammer.

No, he ignored it just fine.

[Glorious Leader]

It's also not spectacularly bad, given the recession that Obama had to cope with and the spending that got the economy through it.

That 2% or so inflation per year works out to nearly 20% inflation over the 8 years in question. It's not a small amount.

And really, there's one solution to high government debts. Tax more, spend less. If you think spending should be reduced, start pointing to plans you, specifically, benefit from but think should be removed. No fair pointing at programs other people benefit from, but not yourself, because that's just self-interest. And how much more federal tax are you willing to pay, to achieve this goal?

That is a non solution to debt. In fact tax more spend less is a good way to recession. How do you deal with the debt? You shrink it relative to gdp. You grow the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he ignored it just fine.

Bah you know what i meant!

[Felya]

Was it reagan or nixon that had a 200% increase? 68% is rather low, and very good. Probably one of the lowest in histor, no?

Reagan started with 1 trillion national debt and ended with 2.9. His spending tripled...

Edit: No, that's not a history low increase. We had a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. Then Gore kissed his wife on national television, Florida man gave birth to hanging chad and we have yet to even sniff breaking even sense.

That's one of the more fun things about Reagan. Our national debt wasn't even a trillion when he started. While his addition to the debt, was well over a trillion. Bush sr then added 1.5 trillion, which was still less than Reagan's. Followed up by Clinton, who under shot both with a 1.4 trillion increase. Then we had Bush jr, who was the first president to preside over a single year increase of over 500 billion and the finished off his presidency with two consecutive 1+ trillion deficit adding years. Now we have Obama, who both posted the lowest spending increase in fiscal year 2015 since Clinton, with 327 billion added, but went over 1 trillion increase in all but 2 years.

Sorry for all the edits, but the president that presided over the deficit increase going from 133 billion to 1.6 trillion, was the same guy who cut the top's tax rate by one of the largest in history... Bush... the president that presided over the largest percent increase, while also being the first to break the previous 299 billion full term spending increase with a striking 1.86 trillion increase, was also the father of trickle down economics that demand tax cuts on the top... Reagan... we now elected Trump, who is proposing yet another historic drop in taxes to the top. If deficit is your concern, or if Trump's rhetoric is to be believed, you are in for a rough ride and you better sell those bonds asap... :|

[Endus]

That is a non solution to debt. In fact tax more spend less is a good way to recession. How do you deal with the debt? You shrink it relative to gdp. You grow the economy.

If you're spending, to grow the economy, then you're increasing debt. It's good for the economy, but it isn't fixing your debt problems.

It's a good position to take if there's a recession going on, or something, but trying to boost an otherwise-healthy economy isn't going to achieve a lot for the investment, and almost certainly won't recoup that investment.

But hey, Canada paid off a lot of our debt by boosting taxes and cutting spending, and we're doing fine today, but what do we know, eh?

[Morrigenn]

Oh look, it's Breitbart.
Not intrested in your bullshit, thanks.

^^^ (Breitbart makes Fox actually look "fair and balanced" by comparison.....)

[Santti]

How much power does the US president really have over money? I have lived under the impression it's rather little he can ultimately do.

This is how I have understood it:

The US President can request changes in the budget from the Congress, but they don't have to agree with any of the requests the President makes. The President is then required by the law to spend the money on stuff the Congress wants him to spend money on, with the tax money set by the Congress. But in the end, the President has to borrow money to cover the expenses that he is legally obligated to buy, at which point the Congress is super shocked when the debt limit is reached, thanks to the President's reckless spending.

So if that is how it basically works (do correct me if I'm wrong, btw), then why is the current president blamed for the debt?

[Jakisuaki]

You can't blame the Commander in Chief alone for that. That's just shallow thinking.

[araine]

So any negative thread about Obama is just stirring the shit but any negative thread about Trump is worthy of being posted and we need a half a dozen of them a day
ever thought of applying to be a MMOC moderator you would fit right in

You can post as many nonsense negative posts about your most hated president ever, still doesnt change the facts on what goes on in the real life. really some people think things happen in a vacuum since no other way to spin the oh Obama runned it up by this much. really common sense look on where we where after bush left office, a guy that inherited a SURPLUS and wrecked that and i dont recall any republican leaning people ever protesting that all we heard was the guvimint is taking to much taxes we need taxcuts since we shouldnt have a surplus. And that same guy left a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars roughly in his last budget.

And since than Obama has done a brilliant job ( could have done more since on many occasions he showed thru as to conservative ( which we knew was his biggest weakness for true change)) But if you think you have gotten screwed and that you dont have any money in your wallet, thats not Obamas fault thats the fault of your beloved trickle down economy that never worked for you, even donald knew it since he went to election saying how you all got screwed by the establishment yet he isnt offering any solutions to that, instead we see more of the same old same old chrony capitalism that wrecked the economy coming back into Trumps cabinet.

Really if you thought the crisis of 08 was bad and how Obama was cuddling with Wall street to screw the working hard Americans well Donald will take that screwed and dial it up by 11.

[Glorious Leader]

If you're spending, to grow the economy, then you're increasing debt. It's good for the economy, but it isn't fixing your debt problems.

It's a good position to take if there's a recession going on, or something, but trying to boost an otherwise-healthy economy isn't going to achieve a lot for the investment, and almost certainly won't recoup that investment.

But hey, Canada paid off a lot of our debt by boosting taxes and cutting spending, and we're doing fine today, but what do we know, eh?

The debt is not a problem per se amd cannot be paid back in real terms anyway. Nor is it even paid off.immediately anyway. You simple grow the econony until the "debt" to gdp ratio shrinks. To run austerity (shrink the deficit) is a great way to increase sovereign debt. Ask greece. In fact ask the euro in genreral.

Every single time the US has a run a surplus it coresspons with a recession. The money to "pay" the debt has to come from somewhere.Its asanine to suggest that a sovereign currency issuer with monopoly control of that currency with no peg and a free float can somehow be in debt in that currency.

[Spectral]

There's a rather long list of corporations and millionaires who pay nothing in taxes, Mitt Romney paid something like 15% in taxes. If you paid yourself using salary you pay a high tax but with creative legal accounting you can end up in the 0 - 15% range.

I appreciate you repeating what I wrote nearly point for point.

Wait, no I don't.

- - - Updated - - -

No, there is enouph information, because all I was looking for is that you would pay less of a percentage...

I guess I already explained why this is nonsense. Knowing how much money someone makes doesn't tell you how much that individual pays in tax.

[Aggrophobic]

^^^ (Breitbart makes Fox actually look "fair and balanced" by comparison.....)

Actually... Yes.