The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2006
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    1,061

    Default Debt hits $16 TRILLION....

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-d...50-under-obama

    (CNSNews.com) -The U.S. government debt, which topped $16 trillion for the first time at the close of business on Friday, now equals approximately $136,260 for every household in the country.

    Just since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt has increased by $45,848 per household—or about 50 percent per household.

    As of Friday, the debt was 16,015,769,788,215.80. According to the Census Bureau, there were approximately 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010. Thus, the current debt equals about $136,260 per household.

    When President Obama was inaugurated in 2010, the debt was 10,626,877,048,913.08 and has since increased by 5,388,892,739,302.72. That equals an increase of about $45,848 per household.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2001
    Posts
    15,232

    Default

    Well at least everyone now knows what his or her fair share of the debt is!

    Who is willing to volunteer to pay his or her fair share?



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2006
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    1,061

    Default

    Yep, according to BTDT, Obama has spent the least amount of any President.

    How is this NEW debt possible? Has to be someone else's fault instead of Obama....



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    7,180

    Default

    OMG, Shermy. GET SOMETHING RIGHT! Stop lying. I gave you the links NO ONE disagrees with that Obama has increased spending the LEAST of any president in decades.

    PLEASE. ONE fact right. Justify ALL of my defenses of you and why people should bother to keep communicating with you.

    And stop making brand new threads to try to justify your "thoughts" when you have no facts in the other one to "prove" you're right, and hope LMH will jump in with something else off topic and you two can make each other feel good.

    Sigh.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2006
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    793

    Default

    Fact of the matter is O is responsible for 5 trillion of the new debt, creating more debt than any other president in history. In less than 4 years

    From what I understand, at the convention not a word has been said about the debt.

    What does the left not understand about BROKE? Yes, I know I keep asking this .



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2006
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    793

    Default

    Shermy, keep up the good work.

    I ask too, why, except the ones recovering under Republican Govenors are all the blue states broke?
    Last edited by AZ Native; Sep. 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AZ Native View Post
    Shermy, keep up the good work.

    I ask too, why, except the ones recovering under Republican Govenors are all the blue states broke?
    Oh right, because Mississippi would totally pave all its own roads without getting Federal money from Manhattanites paying their taxes. Y'all are driving on Blue State paved roads and sending your kids to Blue State paid schools. Feel free to turn down the federal funding if the redistribution of wealth bothers you and "build your own" NYC or LA.



    View this handy chart.

    CA receives .78 in federal funding for every dollar it pays out, for a net loss.
    NY receives .79 in federal funding for every dollar it pays out, for a net loss.

    AZ receives 1.19 in federal funding for every dollar it pays out, for a net gain.


    Out of the 17 states that pay more out than they get back, 14 are blue states. ALL of the 10 states who receive $1.50 or more for every dollar they pay out are red states.

    You're welcome.
    Last edited by meupatdoes; Sep. 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2001
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Posts
    7,806

    Default

    if I decline to vote for any of those assorted idiots, does that mean I'm not associated with "the government" in any way and therefore can be excused from paying my "unfair" share of the debt?



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2006
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    793

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    Oh right, because Mississippi would totally pave all its own roads without getting Federal money from Manhattanites paying their taxes. Y'all are driving on Blue State paved roads and sending your kids to Blue State paid schools. Feel free to turn down the federal funding if the redistribution of wealth bothers you and "build your own" NYC or LA.


    okay, so those states that are solvent or recovering, and the blue states aren't...because why? Because the solvent states get fed money and the insolvent ones don't? Maybe it's because the solvent states use both fed and state money in a more prudent manner, unlike the insolvent states and the federal government.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AZ Native View Post
    okay, so those states that are solvent or recovering, and the blue states aren't...because why? Because the solvent states get fed money and the insolvent ones don't? Maybe it's because the solvent states use both fed and state money in a more prudent manner, unlike the insolvent states and the federal government.
    Well it is surely easier to be solvent if you are 'doing a better job of managing" $2 for every dollar you put in than if you have to fund half the roads in everyone else's states in addition to your own. I don't see Mississippi showing everyone how to fund their own roads BY THEMSELVES. Look at how savvy they are at taking the North's money to stay solvent down South!

    (This line of reasoning brought to you by "math.")



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AZ Native View Post
    okay, so those states that are solvent or recovering, and the blue states aren't...because why? Because the solvent states get fed money and the insolvent ones don't? Maybe it's because the solvent states use both fed and state money in a more prudent manner, unlike the insolvent states and the federal government.
    Seriously.
    Math.

    Give it a revisit.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug. 23, 2006
    Posts
    1,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AZ Native View Post
    Fact of the matter is O is responsible for 5 trillion of the new debt, creating more debt than any other president in history. In less than 4 years

    From what I understand, at the convention not a word has been said about the debt.

    What does the left not understand about BROKE? Yes, I know I keep asking this .
    OH REALLY???? Where does this information come from (certainly not from any factual source!). These are very easily proven facts - they are public record!

    Google is easy! It will give you a gazillion souces of reliable, factual information (you just have to ignore the ones that are NOT quoting actual, proven facts).

    A breakdown of which political party has been responsible for the MOST increases in our national debt shows that the LOWEST percentage of increase came under Clinton (35.6%), the second lowest under Obama (41.4%), and the third lowest under Carter (42.3%) (all democrats).

    The HIGHEST increase in our national debt is attributed to Reagan (188.6%); the next to highest under Bush #2 (89.0%), and the third highest to Bush #1 (55.6%) (all republicans).


    CARTER
    National Debt when Carter left office: $930,210,000,000
    percentage National Debt rose under Carter: 42.3%

    REAGAN
    National Debt when Reagan left office: $2,684,392,000,000
    percentage National Debt rose under Reagan: 188.6%

    BUSH
    National Debt when Bush (#1) left office: $4,177,009,000,000
    percentage National Debt rose under Bush (#1): 55.6%

    CLINTON
    National Debt when Clinton left office: $5,662,216,013,697
    percentage National Debt rose under Clinton: 35.6%

    BUSH
    National Debt when Bush (#2) left office: 10,699,804,864,612
    percentage National Debt rose under Bush (#2): 89.0%

    OBAMA
    National Debt under Obama (to present) :$15,856,367,214,324
    percentage National Debt has risen under Obama (to date): 41.4%

    Enough said?



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Also, who if I may ask was the last president to balance the budget?

    Hm?


    Hint: Not Reagan, Bush1, or Bush 2.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    3,033

    Default

    I know! I have an idea .. we'll solve the debt & deficit problem by cutting taxes some more! no need to pay for wars or for Medicare D.. the idea of funding as you go is sooo old school.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shermy View Post
    Yep, according to BTDT, Obama has spent the least amount of any President.

    How is this NEW debt possible? Has to be someone else's fault instead of Obama....
    Once again, your problems can be solved with something called "understanding how math works."

    The statistic is: Obama has increased the debt the second lowest percentage amount (relative to the total) per president (Clinton having the lowest percentage increase).

    While Reagan more than DOUBLED the national debt during his term (this is what 188% means), Obama and Clinton incurred much much smaller percentage increases relative to the debt they came in with.

    Of course, x% of a number that your predecessor NEARLY TRIPLED is going to be a larger hard number.
    If Reagan had $100 debt going in, and he increased it by 188% of $100 (which is $188) going out he had a $288 debt (or, $100 plus $188).
    Bush1 then further increased the debt by 55%. 55% of $288 is $158. See the relationship between percentages and the hard number?
    So now coming in Clinton has a $446 hole before he even spends a penny.

    (Note also that Bush1 made a 55% increase in ONE term, and Clinton kept his percentage contribution down to 35% over TWO terms. Under Bush1's plan the national debt goes up 55% every four years; under Clinton's plan it only goes up 17% every four years. Would you rather vote for the guy who will more than double the debt in eight years or the guy who will increase it by only a third?)

    Overall the Democrats have a much, much better history of making the smallest percentage increases to the debt. It goes up less overall per amount of debt that already existed per year when the Democrats are in office. In other words, it is much smaller per unit of elapsed time than it would have been in the same unit of elapsed time under the greater percentage increases of the Republicans.

    See?
    Math.



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    10,601

    Default

    Comparing G. Bush to Obama is not a fair comparison as the Obama record is not yet complete. If you want to do a comparison then you have to do first three years of G. Bush to first three years of Obama.

    I note nobody goes back to the father of modern massive deficit spending, LBJ. I wonder why that is?!?!?!

    Here's link with just number, and without political comment. It make for some interesting reading:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

    How advocates of both sides can deal with real numbers, not those put out "spin meisters."

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    Comparing G. Bush to Obama is not a fair comparison as the Obama record is not yet complete. If you want to do a comparison then you have to do first three years of G. Bush to first three years of Obama.

    I note nobody goes back to the father of modern massive deficit spending, LBJ. I wonder why that is?!?!?!

    Here's link with just number, and without political comment. It make for some interesting reading:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

    How advocates of both sides can deal with real numbers, not those put out "spin meisters."

    G.
    Well, Clinton is fair to compare to Bush 1.

    Of course the number goes up every year. NO PRESIDENT has had a percentage DECREASE in the national debt. The question is how fast it has been rising, percentage wise, per unit of elapsed time. Under some plans the rate of increase goes up dramatically, and under other plans it slows dramatically. Still going up all the time, but climbing slower rather than faster, or vice versa.

    If you had the choice to elect either one of them to office for the next 8 years, under the guarantee that their fiscal performance would be the same their prior terms, would you pick the guy who would MORE THAN DOUBLE the debt we have now in the next eight years, or the guy who would increase it by only a third in the next eight years?
    Who is more fiscally responsible?



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    3,033

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    year. NO PRESIDENT has had a percentage DECREASE in the national debt.
    Actually, it fell during the Clinton if you measure as a percentage of GDP.

    "The public debt burden during the presidency of Bill Clinton between 1992 and 2000, fell due in part to decreased militarily spending after Cold War, 1990, 1993 and 1997 budget deals, gridlock between White House and Congress, and increased tax revenue resulting from the Dot-com bubble.[11][12][13] The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained fiscal action by the Congress and the President and together with economic growth contributed to the budget surpluses that materialized by the end of the decade. These surpluses led to a decline in the debt held by the public, and from fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the debt-to-GDP measure declined from about 43 percent to about 33 percent.[14]"



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun. 7, 2006
    Posts
    9,616

    Default

    Hahaha!!

    Math has a liberal bias.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar. 23, 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    3,033

    Default

    No need to deal with math...

    Karl Rove: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Aug. 26, 2010, 09:28 AM
  2. Replies: 68
    Last Post: Aug. 25, 2010, 01:49 PM
  3. Debt at 22??
    By mayfieldk in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 19, 2010, 06:43 AM
  4. A trillion flies in my house!
    By GallopingGrape in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Mar. 12, 2009, 09:12 PM
  5. Go into debt for a horse???
    By Elegante E in forum Dressage
    Replies: 463
    Last Post: Jan. 17, 2008, 04:01 AM

Posting Permissions

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