Who Increased the Debt?

#1
n_huffhines

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
88,359
Likes
53,299
#1
Just thought everyone should know:

who_increased_debt.jpg
 
#3
#3
Congress.

President has veto power and nothing else. The debt is entirely on congress. Except in the few ways that the Executive can spend without congressional consent, but I am ignoring that at as insignificant.
 
#5
#5
nbakerld said:
I dispute Obama's number. I've seen this same chart showing him at 35%.
Click to expand...

Percentage is misleading to a degree. Inflation adjusted real dollar amounts are a lot more telling. If you go from $500 to $1000 you raised the debt by 100%. If the next guy goes from $1000 to %1600 the debt was raised by 60%. Who raised it more?
 
#7
#7
Source: "Office of the Democratic Leader".

Would love to see a non-partisan calculation here.

That said, Clinton and Obama have the advantage of an opposing Congress that stalemates policies. I would be willing to bet Bush, as well, shows most of the debt in his first term with a friendly Congress.
 
#9
#9
from Democrats, Republicans, and the Federal Debt Since 1979 | AllFinancialMatters

respecttradition-albums-stuff-picture3599-government-composition-federal-debt-1979-2010.gif


The article I lifted this from also says: "Based on the last 31 years of data, the worst combination to have is a Democratic House and a Republican President. The best combination has been a Republican House and a Democrat President. NONE, however, have been good because ALL of them increased the federal debt every year. The only one that came close to not growing the debt was the year 2000 when we had a Republican House and Clinton as president."
 
#10
#10
the compounded annual rate of growth of the debt under Obama is 15.21%. It was 8.03% under Bush. 3.99% under Clinton. And 11.62% under Bush 1
 
#12
#12
golfballs03 said:
the compounded annual rate of growth of the debt under Obama is 15.21%. It was 8.03% under Bush. 3.99% under Clinton. And 11.62% under Bush 1
Click to expand...

Does that include war funding under Bush II? I don't think he included it in his deficit numbers every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
golfballs03 said:
the compounded annual rate of growth of the debt under Obama is 15.21%. It was 8.03% under Bush. 3.99% under Clinton. And 11.62% under Bush 1
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be stupid, but this is an area where my education is a little lacking. How do you calculate those numbers?
 
#15
#15
right. and you can obviously adjust that equation to figure out the cagr

(new principle/old principle)*(1/years)-1
 
#17
#17
Okay, a few bits of info. I've seen this analysis before and it is looking at what new programs are attributable to Obama and what is their current impact on the debt. Problems with that analysis:

1) Assumes he cannot change previous programs and their impact - eg. current debt accruing from war spending is considered Bush's even though Obama could change it but hasn't.
2) Ignores changes in revenue side of debt - only looks at spending. To the extent Obama policies have depressed revenues via depressed growth is not included.
3) Doesn't capture future costs of current policies. For example, Prescription Drug benefits costs are credited to Bush. Debt adding effect of Obamacare is unknown so it is excluded (and some analyses actually give a credit due to ridiculous CBO claim it will lower debt).

Bottomline, you need to look backward after Obama for this to be apples to apples.

Other bottomline - Obama sucks
 
#18
#18
volinbham said:
Okay, a few bits of info. I've seen this analysis before and it is looking at what new programs are attributable to Obama and what is their current impact on the debt. Problems with that analysis:

1) Assumes he cannot change previous programs and their impact - eg. current debt accruing from war spending is considered Bush's even though Obama could change it but hasn't.
2) Ignores changes in revenue side of debt - only looks at spending. To the extent Obama policies have depressed revenues via depressed growth is not included.
3) Doesn't capture future costs of current policies. For example, Prescription Drug benefits costs are credited to Bush. Debt adding effect of Obamacare is unknown so it is excluded (and some analyses actually give a credit due to ridiculous CBO claim it will lower debt).

Bottomline, you need to look backward after Obama for this to be apples to apples.

Other bottomline - Obama sucks
Click to expand...

I still stand by my opinion, regardless of how much I dislike Obama. Congress is ultimately at fault. The president can't do squat except veto a budget he doesn't like. He can't raise spending one dime unless congress gives him that budget first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#19
#19
volinbham said:
Okay, a few bits of info. I've seen this analysis before and it is looking at what new programs are attributable to Obama and what is their current impact on the debt. Problems with that analysis:

1) Assumes he cannot change previous programs and their impact - eg. current debt accruing from war spending is considered Bush's even though Obama could change it but hasn't.
2) Ignores changes in revenue side of debt - only looks at spending. To the extent Obama policies have depressed revenues via depressed growth is not included.
3) Doesn't capture future costs of current policies. For example, Prescription Drug benefits costs are credited to Bush. Debt adding effect of Obamacare is unknown so it is excluded (and some analyses actually give a credit due to ridiculous CBO claim it will lower debt).

Bottomline, you need to look backward after Obama for this to be apples to apples.

Other bottomline - Obama sucks
Click to expand...

Clearly Bush's fault.
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
Okay, a few bits of info. I've seen this analysis before and it is looking at what new programs are attributable to Obama and what is their current impact on the debt. Problems with that analysis:

1) Assumes he cannot change previous programs and their impact - eg. current debt accruing from war spending is considered Bush's even though Obama could change it but hasn't.
2) Ignores changes in revenue side of debt - only looks at spending. To the extent Obama policies have depressed revenues via depressed growth is not included.
3) Doesn't capture future costs of current policies. For example, Prescription Drug benefits costs are credited to Bush. Debt adding effect of Obamacare is unknown so it is excluded (and some analyses actually give a credit due to ridiculous CBO claim it will lower debt).

Bottomline, you need to look backward after Obama for this to be apples to apples.

Other bottomline - Obama sucks
Click to expand...

Correct
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
RespectTradition said:
I still stand by my opinion, regardless of how much I dislike Obama. Congress is ultimately at fault. The president can't do squat except veto a budget he doesn't like. He can't raise spending one dime unless congress gives him that budget first.
Click to expand...

He certainly can drive the agenda and most decidedly does for military spending. Obama could have ended both wars immediately if he so chose and Congress could do nothing really about it. He chose to continue the policies and pushed for the funding to do so.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
He certainly can drive the agenda and most decidedly does for military spending. Obama could have ended both wars immediately if he so chose and Congress could do nothing really about it. He chose to continue the policies and pushed for the funding to do so.
Click to expand...

And congress could have defunded or rescinded the declaration that gives him the right to wage war.
 
#23
#23
To add to the analysis, the ignoring of the revenue side greatly benefits the Clinton legacy. It's hard to pinpoint specific policy initiatives of Clinton that lead to the rapid revenue growth of the late 90s. Each of his budgets was larger than the previous one so he didn't reduce spending. He along with Congress did reduce the rate of spending growth and they did so in a time when economic growth was rapid. His same policies in the current growth scenario would have led to large deficits.
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
Sure - but to say it is Congress not the President is not realistic given how it really occurs. The are equally complicit.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, congress controls the purse strings. We give the president a lot more credit/blame for what goes on. Yes, the power of the president has expanded greatly in recent years, but that power is mostly limited to regulation, interpretation and enforcement decisions. Money, in any way I see of significance, always comes from congress. Look how Clinton was stymied time and time again. He had wants. He had an agenda. He had to take what congress would give him.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top