Never Trump

[jimmy eat jazz]

This is what the right has been saying for a long time, but the left has remained oblivious. I wonder if the tide is finally turning. If Hillary's last name wasn't Clinton she would have been tossed from this race long ago. If you watch nothing else, watch the last 30 seconds.

Just like Benghazi would be her downfall before this, and travel gate and Lewinsky/impeachment for her husband before that.

 

[♪alt13]

Here's a little context: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

The most relevant measure of public debt is not absolute debt, but debt as a percentage of national income (GDP), which has actually grown at a slower rate under Obama than either W. or Reagan.

Note that Reagan and Obama both had to deal with a severe recession at the beginning of their presidency, and in Obama's case, there was TARP and other fiscal stimulus spending. I'd bet that, if you had to choose between the growth of debt under Obama due to TARP and fiscal stimulus, with the likely counterfactual (e.g., crash of financial system and even more prolonged and serious recession), you'd choose the former.

Context matters here as everyone else . . . unless all one is interested in is knee jerk criticism.

from the article

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

OBDS WOW. Are u serious? The guy is a lunatic Washington insider controlled by corporate interests. You do realize he is a career politician who took more Wall Street and evil money than every president in history including Hillary?

Dead serious. The hyperbole in the referenced post is ridiculous.

Your reply hit on at least three angry person talking points. Nice job.

From where I sit, Obama has been a sea of rationality and reasoned measures since taking office, notwithstanding the tempest of excessive irrationality and un-reason dominating the opposition party since he took office.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

from the article

Yep, but then look at the last graph, which shows that Obama has increased debt at a slower rate than Reagan or Bush. So, what does that suggest as to why debt/GDP is rising at the given rate, given the % rate increase in debt?

Answer: Obama faced a situation not faced by past presidents since Reagan, taking office in the midst of a severe and prolonged recession in which (1) GDP stagnated, (2) tax revenues fell and (2) expenditures went up due to TARP and other fiscal stimulus spending. A triple whammy that contributed to a rising debt/GDP ratio. Hardly Obama's fault.

Again, would you have preferred that there was no TARP (which was actually a Bush policy holdover, so he gets some of the blame, as well as what ever blame he deserves for the recession) or fiscal stimulus spending?

As I said, context matters.

 

[str8line]

Dead serious. The hyperbole in the referenced post is ridiculous.

Your reply hit on at least three angry person talking points. Nice job.

From where I sit, Obama has been a sea of rationality and reasoned measures since taking office, notwithstanding the tempest of excessive irrationality and un-reason dominating the opposition party since he took office.

I agree. His demeanor has be exceptional in my opinion. You can tell his frustration runs deep with the continual partisan politics that have plagued his terms yet he hasn't lost his cool. Every President has had to deal with it(Lincoln's letters are fascinating), but the forces you mentioned have been the overarching theme of Obama's presidency.

 

[♪alt13]

Yep, but then look at the last graph, which shows that Obama has increased debt at a slower rate than Reagan or Bush. So, what does that suggest as to why debt/GDP is rising at the given rate, given the % rate increase in debt?

Answer: Obama faced a situation not faced by past presidents since Reagan, taking office in the midst of a severe and prolonged recession in which (1) GDP stagnated, (2) tax revenues fell and (2) expenditures went up due to TARP and other fiscal stimulus spending. A triple whammy that contributed to a rising debt/GDP ratio. Hardly Obama's fault.

Again, would you have preferred that there was no TARP (which was actually a Bush policy holdover, so he gets some of the blame, as well as what ever blame he deserves for the recession) or fiscal stimulus spending?

As I said, context matters.

omg

This graph

Does not show this

The most relevant measure of public debt is not absolute debt, but debt as a percentage of national income (GDP), which has actually grown at a slower rate under Obama than either W. or Reagan.

It shows the percentage change of absolute debt from when each president took office to when they left.

This graph is relevant to your statement(and proves it to be false)

I'm not interested in getting into a partisan debate with you.

 

[franklin]

omg

This graph

Hurt to mention? Every single person on this board knows the two party system blows. No one's supporting it.

That was arguably the most fiscally irresponsible time ever, but that's an entirely separate point.

Thank you, kind sir.

 

[Surely]

I find it funny (sad actually) that out of 319 million people in this country these are the two best candidates we can come up with. Not to go all tinfoil hat on everyone but it almost makes one believe that there is something going on behind the curtain that we can't see. Seriously, how is it that a lady who may or may not be indicted and Trump (do I need to say more?) are the best options?

 

[Surely]

The most disastrous thing I think he has said yet is that the US wouldn't pay our debts in full. Welcome to Greece.

(but worse, nobody is going to bail us out)

Serious question, is it possible for the US to pay off the national debt?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Here's a little context: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

The most relevant measure of public debt is not absolute debt, but debt as a percentage of national income (GDP), which has actually grown at a slower rate under Obama than either W. or Reagan.

Note that Reagan and Obama both had to deal with a severe recession at the beginning of their presidency, and in Obama's case, there was TARP and other fiscal stimulus spending. I'd bet that, if you had to choose between the growth of debt under Obama due to TARP and fiscal stimulus, with the likely counterfactual (e.g., crash of financial system and even more prolonged and serious recession), you'd choose the former.

Context matters here as everyone else . . . unless all one is interested in is knee jerk criticism.

Oh, you've really opened my eyes with your crafty use of graphs and stats. Thank you for nearly doubling our already out of control debt, President Obama. Special thanks for more than doubling the publicly held portion.

And BTW, you know who holds most of that publicly held portion? Hint: It's not the American public.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I find it funny (sad actually) that out of 319 million people in this country these are the two best candidates we can come up with. Not to go all tinfoil hat on everyone but it almost makes one believe that there is something going on behind the curtain that we can't see. Seriously, how is it that a lady who may or may not be indicted and Trump (do I need to say more?) are the best options?

I can't bring myself to click the "like" button on your post because I dislike everything you are saying, but I agree with it completely. And as for "how is it that..." Do you know anyone who would want to run for that job? We've created a system that favors narcissists and liars while sending every legit candidate with an ounce of common sense running for the hills.

TLDR: There are many better potential candidates out there, but none of them are stupid enough to run.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

omg

This graph

Does not show this




It shows the percentage change of absolute debt from when each president took office to when they left.

This graph is relevant to your statement(and proves it to be false)

I'm not interested in getting into a partisan debate with you.

omg

This graph

Does not show this




It shows the percentage change of absolute debt from when each president took office to when they left.

This graph is relevant to your statement(and proves it to be false)

I'm not interested in getting into a partisan debate with you.

Oh right, I see your point. I mis-spoke on that point. Whoops. I was in a hurry and didn't pay close enough attention to what I was writing. Sorry.

But, my larger point remains correct. Debt/GDP is, in my view, the best measure of debt. The rise in debt/GDP under Obama did rise at a fast rate, but it was to a large degree the result of forces outside Obama's control, that is, the three-headed monster of (1) slower GDP growth, (2) falling tax revenues, (3) rising spending--all due in large part to a serious and pro-longed recession. Much of the increase in spending, moreover, under TARP was put in motion under Bush and was inherited by Obama. So, my main point (which holds even thought I messed up) is that to simply take a rise in debt or debt/GDP under Obama and use this to condemn his Presidency, or make a broader statement about "tax and spend liberal", or something like that, fails to take into account the context that Obama assumed the presidency during a serious and pro-longed recession, and this type of economic data needs to be understood in that light, which the original poster did not do.

One interesting thing in the last graph is that the rise in debt/GDP rose at a faster rate under successive Republican Presidents during the 80s, flattened out under Clinton in the 90s, more or less, than picked up again under Bush after 2000. I don't pretend to understand all of the factors that have contributed to these trends (the early 80's recession Reagan inherited and the tremendous GDP growth under Clinton certainly offer themselves as likely contributors), but the certainly belie any argument on their face that Democrats are liberal tax and spenders (which I think the original poster was trying to suggest), while Republicans are fiscally prudent guardians of the public treasury.

I'm not being partisan. I'm perfectly happy to blame Obama for his shortcomings (not imagined ones by hyperventilating ideologues), I would argue the same thing if we were talking about a Republican President.