The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Who increased the debt....

  1. #11
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,241

    Default

    How much money, greenbacks, Somalians, dough, moola, dollar bills has Obama increased the debt vs. the other 4 combined. Don't give me percentages if possible.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  2. #12
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    Good grief Yardley. Surely you know better. Look at the debt as a % of GDP and look at the deficit as a % of GDP.
    Unfortunately this figure you speak of has a denominator as well as a numerator... They have both moved in unfavorable directions.


    Sorry Mike, I couldn't help myself. I'll refrain from talking about math from now on. Maybe!
    Last edited by Buzz; 09-29-2011 at 09:09 AM. Reason: spelling/typing error
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Actually, the picture is the same when you only consider real dollars as a percentage of GDP

    In round numbers, under Reagan the debt increased by almost 21% of GDP. Under GB, it increased 13% of GDP, under Clinton it decreased almost 10% of GDP, under GWB it increased by almost 28% of GDP, and under Obama it increased by 9% of GDP. Between Roosevelt and Reagan, the debt decreased as a percentage of GDP under every administration. (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms
    You are right in what you say but that is not the complete story. Reagan was certainly at fault, along with the congress in increasing the debt. But let us go back and look at the presidents before him and come back to his time.

    During the Carter administration, expenditures jumped from about 18% to over 20% of GDP while revenues stayed at about 18%(revenues had stayed at about 18% from 1951 until the end of the Clinton administration when it rose above 20%). So why did the debt as a % of GDP go down during the Carter administration? Simple, we experienced a period of the highest inflation(not his fault). Inflation will always reduce the ratio of debt to GDP. Never theless, he did increase the ratio of expenditures to GDP.

    Nixon, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy all ran relatively tight revenues and expenditures(around 18-19% of GDP). Inflation was actually initiated during the Johnson administration and Nixon even put in place price controls in an attempt to curtain it. It worked for his term but Carter paid for it during his term.

    When Reagan came into office, inflation had been brought under control thanks to Paul Volker and 20% interest rates. Reagan was determined to bring the UUr to its knees by drastically increasing military spending. He did try to cut other spending to compensate the military buildup(I do remember his budget director John Stockman fighting with the democrat house and senate to cut non military spending. He got nowhere and for the first time other than the short time Carter had a budget over 20% of GDP, Reagan's budgetwent as high as 23% of GDP. Obviously the compromise between Reagan and the congress was to increase military spending but not cut non military spending. With little or no inflation, the result was a growth in debt to GDP which is the highest of any time between 1951 until 2009. probably a mistake since expenditures have only fallen below 20% of GDP only during the last 6 years of the Clinton admin. with a republican house and senate. they were able to compromise and return to fiscal sanity.

    W Bush probably is the most guilty. After his tax cuts, revenues fluctuated quite a bit from 15-18% while he and his republican congress went on spending about 20% of GDP. I blame the republicans not for cutting taxes but for continueing spending at levels of 20% of GDP. From 1951 until the reagan admin, spending ran a relatively constant 18%.

    I believe that had the republicans maintained fiscal sanity and had refused social engineering through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, we never would have had either the president ofr congress we had 2009-2011. The government during this period has run expenditures of well over 25% of GDP even if you believe the nembers they have used(they have distorted them with the expenditures of TARP and the repayment of these funds)

    One other thing you might remember concerning the numbers. When they talk about public debt they mean debt only held by the public. An example is the 600 billion in debt that the FED bought is not counted as public debt and will distort the numbers when it comes to the current president. All you have to look at is that his expenditures went to over 25% of GDP while his revenues went to 15% of GDP. That has to be scary and no wonder fiscal conservatives are screaming louder and hope that if the reublicans regain control that they have learned their lesson. If not then there will be hell to pay.

  4. #14
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    I don't disagree with your analysis, although we may differ some on interpretation. However, just as it is important to consider the rate of inflation (something that is actually already embedded in the analysis when you are looking at debt as a percentage of GDP), it is even more important to look at the rate of GDP growth and and the value of US currency relative to the value of the currencies of our trading partners. A big factor in the growth of deficit relative of GDP under GB41 and Obama were the recessions that each inherited. If the economy contracts and spending remains constant, then spending grows as a percentage of GDP. However, cutting spending under those circumstances will actually make a recession worse. At the same time, during a recession, tax revenues will normally decline by a higher percentage than GDP as a whole, making the deficit even worse. That was not the case with either the Reagan or GWB administrations. The argument that Reagan's deficit was necessary because of the importance of increasing military spending has no more merit than the arguments of Democrats who say that deficits are OK when we are investing in education. Spending is spending. If the budgets need to be balanced, you either raise taxes, make offsetting cuts in other areas, or you do not make the spending increases you believe are needed. The unfortunate facts is that the Reagan, GWB and Obama administrations have shared a belief that balancing the budget is a secondary priority. In periods of recession, I would generally agree. However, that is where currency values come into the equation. GWB adopted a strategy of systematic currency devaluation to reduce the value of our national debt. The value of the dollar declined 40% as a result and our stature as an economic force in the world was severely damaged. That would have been largely irrelevant in prior administrations since we essentially self-financed our debt - that is, it was purchased by government programs (social security) and US investors.

    Under GWB, the debt grew beyond our ability to finance it, and more and more was purchased by other countries. Now we are dependent on their perceptions of or credit worthiness and the evidence says we are not a good risk. That makes it necessary to take actions to control the debt that may, in fact, damage our economy in the short run to satisfy the demands of our creditors. That may be the single most important economic legacy of GWB's presidency.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    My eyes glaze over in utter boredom while gazing at your "Blame Republicans!" chart created by such an unbiased and unimpeachable source like the Democrat Leader, yet I am pleased that you're posting again. Welcome back!
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  6. #16
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    My eyes glaze over in utter boredom while gazing at your "Blame Republicans!" chart created by such an unbiased and unimpeachable source like the Democrat Leader, yet I am pleased that you're posting again. Welcome back!
    Thanks HEW, although the numbers did come from the Treasury Dept, not Pelosi, and I did try to add a little more meat.....

  7. #17
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Thanks HEW, although the numbers did come from the Treasury Dept, not Pelosi, and I did try to add a little more meat.....
    I'm shocked??

    You call it "meat," some would call it "spin!"
    I truly do love when you guys play the "he started it" card!!

    Weclome back Mr Yardley!!


    RK
    Last edited by road kill; 09-29-2011 at 07:24 AM.
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #18
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Ah...the "Head of the Class Envy crowd" rears up again. I imagine Buzz is elated to have you impress him with what he should have thought of.

    For the sake of your offspring, Yardley, it's my true hope you will someday heal all your sword wounds, and realize this oligarchy is in the process of shoving this country over the precipice. How can you possibly continue your support of what your party is doing to this nation?

    Fortunately, despite the left's best efforts to ruin this country, there are sane folks that put patriotism ahead of the unionista design of destruction, and will hopefully pull this collapse out of the depths of despair.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I don't disagree with your analysis, although we may differ some on interpretation. However, just as it is important to consider the rate of inflation (something that is actually already embedded in the analysis when you are looking at debt as a percentage of GDP), it is even more important to look at the rate of GDP growth and and the value of US currency relative to the value of the currencies of our trading partners. A big factor in the growth of deficit relative of GDP under GB41 and Obama were the recessions that each inherited. If the economy contracts and spending remains constant, then spending grows as a percentage of GDP. However, cutting spending under those circumstances will actually make a recession worse. At the same time, during a recession, tax revenues will normally decline by a higher percentage than GDP as a whole, making the deficit even worse. That was not the case with either the Reagan or GWB administrations. The argument that Reagan's deficit was necessary because of the importance of increasing military spending has no more merit than the arguments of Democrats who say that deficits are OK when we are investing in education. Spending is spending. If the budgets need to be balanced, you either raise taxes, make offsetting cuts in other areas, or you do not make the spending increases you believe are needed. The unfortunate facts is that the Reagan, GWB and Obama administrations have shared a belief that balancing the budget is a secondary priority. In periods of recession, I would generally agree. However, that is where currency values come into the equation. GWB adopted a strategy of systematic currency devaluation to reduce the value of our national debt. The value of the dollar declined 40% as a result and our stature as an economic force in the world was severely damaged. That would have been largely irrelevant in prior administrations since we essentially self-financed our debt - that is, it was purchased by government programs (social security) and US investors.

    Under GWB, the debt grew beyond our ability to finance it, and more and more was purchased by other countries. Now we are dependent on their perceptions of or credit worthiness and the evidence says we are not a good risk. That makes it necessary to take actions to control the debt that may, in fact, damage our economy in the short run to satisfy the demands of our creditors. That may be the single most important economic legacy of GWB's presidency.
    Only one part I completely dissagree with, "However cutting spending under these circumstances would make the recession worse". I cite the recession of 1920 when unemployment went above 30% and GDP dropped about 30% also(it has been a while since I looked at the actual numbers so take them as approximate), far higher than anything that we have experienced now. the action taken was to CUT FED spending from a little over 6 billion to less than 3 billion and to CUT the maximum tax rate from 75% to 25% in only 2 YEARS. The result was meteoric recovery. While during the Roosevelt admin. the policy was to INCREASE SPENDING AND INCREASE TAXES WITH THE RESULT OF A DEPRESSION THAT LASTED ALMOSST 15 YEARS.

    One simple question. It seems to me that all those liberals argue during good times that given the increased revenues that that is the time to increase Gov. spending. During times as these, they argue that we must INCREASE SPENDING inorder to increase demand. Tell me WHEN IS THERE EVER A TIME THAT LIBERALS WOULD ARFUE FOR THE GOV. TO CUT SPENDING???????

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Ah...the "Head of the Class Envy crowd" rears up again. I imagine Buzz is elated to have you impress him with what he should have thought of.

    For the sake of your offspring, Yardley, it's my true hope you will someday heal all your sword wounds, and realize this oligarchy is in the process of shoving this country over the precipice. How can you possibly continue your support of what your party is doing to this nation?

    Fortunately, despite the left's best efforts to ruin this country, there are sane folks that put patriotism ahead of the unionista design of destruction, and will hopefully pull this collapse out of the depths of despair.

    UB

    I have what I thought was a smart relative. She and her family can only talk about the bad Republicans and how stubborn they are. The kicker is that this lady does not in any way approve of most Unions. She listens to the wrong "news" people. I am so very tired of hearing them talk about this. Both parties are at fault but that family does not see it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •