brenthutch 388 #176 January 10, 2017 billvon>If $4 trillion is unpatriotic, I think you would agree with me that $8 trillion is downright treasonous. Cool! You backed off from your previous lie of "doubled" and are now back to the standard right wing tactic of calling people names. At this rate, within 5-10 more posts you'll be pretty close to reality. Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. CNN says, " By January 2009, the United States had accumulated $10.6 trillion in debt. That's the net amount the country had borrowed from Washington through the Bush years. The gross national debt now stands at $19.7 trillion. That's an increase of $9.1 trillion — not quite a doubling, but pretty close." And that was three months ago. Show me your numbers and sources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 936 #177 January 10, 2017 brenthutch***>If $4 trillion is unpatriotic, I think you would agree with me that $8 trillion is downright treasonous. Cool! You backed off from your previous lie of "doubled" and are now back to the standard right wing tactic of calling people names. At this rate, within 5-10 more posts you'll be pretty close to reality. Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. CNN says, " By January 2009, the United States had accumulated $10.6 trillion in debt. That's the net amount the country had borrowed from Washington through the Bush years. The gross national debt now stands at $19.7 trillion. That's an increase of $9.1 trillion — not quite a doubling, but pretty close." And that was three months ago. Show me your numbers and sources. "False Ribble Says President Barack Obama "built this $16 trillion debt." — Reid Ribble on Thursday, August 30th, 2012 in an interview President Obama 'built' nation's $16 trillion debt, GOP Rep. Reid Ribble says Ribble said Obama "built this $16 trillion debt." His spokeswoman said Ribble meant that the debt had reached that level because of Obama. But Ribble used the $16 trillion figure, not the roughly $5 trillion that the debt has increased under Obama. Moreover, the debt grew not only due to Obama’s actions, but those taken by present and past presidents and Congresses. We rate Ribble’s statement False. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/12/reid-ribble/president-obama-built-nations-16-trillion-debt-gop/ "Importantly, though, President Obama did sign many laws worsening this debt situation. Among the most significant are the 2009 stimulus, extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts temporarily in 2010 and making most of them permanent in 2012, the 2015 permanent "doc fix," and the tax extenders/omnibus bill at the end of 2015. President Obama also signed several pieces of legislation to reduce projected debt, most significantly the Budget Control Act. But importantly, these laws were written not by the president but by Congress. It is Congress that passes tax and spending legislation. There is little the president can do to impact the debt, positively or negatively, without a bill passed by Congress. Conversly there is little Congress can do without the president's signature or a veto-proof supermajority. Further, during most of Obama's term to date, control of Congress was split between a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. Both branches share blame, both for legislation that increased the debt and for failing to enact legislation that would curb the debt growth that was already projected to occur from the growth of entitlement programs and insufficient revenues. *** By a few metrics, debt has doubled during the Obama presidency. The blame though is not only on him because some of the debt increase over the past eight years was already expected to occur, and Congress had to approve bills that increased the debt. Interestingly, debt held by the public would double again by 2024 under Trump's proposed plans – so while he is right about what's happened under President Obama's watch, his plan will make the problem worse. Our Rating: It's Complicated" http://crfb.org/blogs/has-president-obama-doubled-national-debt Total debt or debt/GDP is an equal measure of burden to put upon future generations to repay. Perhaps politicians pay should be tied to balanced budgets. If projected revenues are unmatched by expenses pensions would have to be held back as well. I think a profits repatriation bill is a good idea. But it should not be a blank check for corporate America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #178 January 10, 2017 You quoted a source from 2012, it is now 2017. Update your information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #179 January 10, 2017 brenthutch Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. So how do you feel about a president who tripled the debt? (His name was Ronald Reagan).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 936 #180 January 10, 2017 brenthutchYou quoted a source from 2012, it is now 2017. Update your information. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/sep/12/donald-trump/trump-solely-blames-obama-doubling-debt/ and the other quote was July 2016. You do know the last budget was submitted Feb 2, 2015 for the 2016 year? Anyway back to the issue of debt. "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget" finds :"Study: Trump trade plan would cost 4M U.S. jobs Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 | 10:14 AM ET | 04:19 The national debt would surge under a Donald Trump presidency, though not as much as originally thought, according to a new analysis. Trump's stated plans to stimulate the economy through the building of infrastructure, boosting military spending and making sharp tax cuts would increase the national IOU by $5.3 trillion, or roughly 26 times more than Hillary Clinton's" from "The CRFB is a bipartisan panel made of former policymakers and legislators looking to bring down the national debt and deficits. Some prominent members include former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #181 January 10, 2017 kallend*** Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. So how do you feel about a president who tripled the debt? (His name was Ronald Reagan). RR added $1.9 trillion, BHO added $9+trillion. 1.9<9, that is just math. That said, I do think the lack of fiscal discipline is a blemish on his legacy. (Although he did vanquish the "Evil Empire" without firing a shot) Obama on the other hand can't even beat a "JV team." I won't even mention that RR achieved a growth rate of more than double that of BHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #182 January 10, 2017 brenthutch****** Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. So how do you feel about a president who tripled the debt? (His name was Ronald Reagan). RR added $1.9 trillion, BHO added $9+trillion. 1.9<9, that is just math. I guess the concept of "double" and "triple" escape you, despite YOUR bringing up the doubling of the debt.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #183 January 10, 2017 I brought it up as an aside to my main point which was the anemic recovery under BHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #184 January 10, 2017 kallend********* Actually I was being generous, factcheck.org says obama has more than doubled the debt. So how do you feel about a president who tripled the debt? (His name was Ronald Reagan). RR added $1.9 trillion, BHO added $9+trillion. 1.9<9, that is just math. I guess the concept of "double" and "triple" escape you, despite YOUR bringing up the doubling of the debt. Perhaps. This is how I understand it. 1X3=3 10X2=20 3<(that means less than)20 I would rather owe $3 than $20. Where did I go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #185 January 10, 2017 brenthutch Where did I go wrong? When you swallowed the right wing Kool Aid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #186 January 10, 2017 It is sad to see you reduced to name calling, although I know it is just your way of conceding the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #187 January 10, 2017 brenthutchIt is sad to see you reduced to name calling, although I know it is just your way of conceding the point. Having a little reading comprehension problem today?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #188 January 10, 2017 >I brought it up as an aside to my main point which was the anemic recovery under BHO. And now you're backing away from your claim of "The most anemic recovery in the modern era." You're getting closer and closer to reality; good job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,952 #189 January 10, 2017 After reading both of you going on about which president increased the federal debt by how much in what years I can't really decide which of you are correct or why it would matter. If Trump's plan comes in it will be a completely irrelevant matter compared to how much he will increase it in four years.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #190 January 11, 2017 billvon>I brought it up as an aside to my main point which was the anemic recovery under BHO. And now you're backing away from your claim of "The most anemic recovery in the modern era." You're getting closer and closer to reality; good job. Just where am I backing off of that reality? http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #191 January 11, 2017 >Just where am I backing off of that reality? You claimed that it was "The most anemic recovery in the modern era." I demonstrated that you were wrong. Now you have backed off to "the anemic recovery under BHO." In another few posts I expect to see something like "would have been better under Trump" or some other walkback. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #192 January 11, 2017 You should stick to engineering, when it comes to economics you are in over your head. BTW I did not back down, I doubled down and provide proof. FYI GDP is the accepted metric for determining recession and recovery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #193 January 11, 2017 >You should stick to engineering, when it comes to economics you are in over your head. And now you admit defeat, and try to change the subject with an insult! That's pretty much what I expected. At least you know when to give up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #194 January 11, 2017 No, you obviously can't/won't wrap you brain around what the definitions of recession and recovery are, not the HuffPo spin, but the actual definition. I will give you a quick primer. Unemployment rate, deficit, and jobs created are no more acceptable than the workforce participation rate, the number of folks on food stamps or the poverty rate. It is based on something I like to call GDP (gross domestic product). Class dismissed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #195 January 11, 2017 brenthutchNo, you obviously can't/won't wrap you brain around what the definitions of recession and recovery are, not the HuffPo spin, but the actual definition. I will give you a quick primer. Unemployment rate, deficit, and jobs created are no more acceptable than the workforce participation rate, the number of folks on food stamps or the poverty rate. It is based on something I like to call GDP (gross domestic product). Class dismissed. I'll take Obama's "slow" recovery over his predecessor's worst recession in 80 years any time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #196 January 11, 2017 What you take, and what you don't take, is entirely your prerogative. I support you 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,274 #197 January 11, 2017 brenthutchYou should stick to engineering, when it comes to economics you are in over your head. BTW I did not back down, I doubled down and provide proof. FYI GDP is the accepted metric for determining recession and recovery. You didn't provide any proof or any evidence for your claims over the recovery. You provided numbers on the debt/defecit, but as you've just said that is not the same thing as recession/recovery.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,167 #198 January 11, 2017 Didn't it take a global war to really pull us out of the Great Depression? I'm no sure that's an improvement over an anemic recovery. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #199 January 11, 2017 wmw999Didn't it take a global war to really pull us out of the Great Depression? I'm no sure that's an improvement over an anemic recovery. Wendy P. Yes, but those are details. Details and facts are no longer important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #200 January 11, 2017 QuoteNo, you obviously can't/won't wrap you brain around what the definitions of recession and recovery are, not the HuffPo spin, but the actual definition. I will give you a quick primer. Unemployment rate, deficit, and jobs created are no more acceptable than the workforce participation rate, the number of folks on food stamps or the poverty rate. It is based on something I like to call GDP (gross domestic product). Class dismissed. And now changing the goalposts! You failed miserably on "doubled the debt" and "most anemic recovery in the modern era" so now you switched to GDP. Keep throwing stuff against the wall - some may stick. And if not, you can try the old standbys of general insults, a quote from Breitbart or (if you get more desperate) changing the subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites