Thread: They chose to fail.

Originally Posted by 9aces

None of those track the debt do they?

You see it's rather easy to call your budget balanced, or having a surplus when your budget simply...leaves things out.

As you can see, the Treasury department simply calls your numbers what they are. Bullshit. Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

This does:

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by goober

It's really easy to see there was no surplus, if you don't understand what the numbers mean. Those of us burdened with an education, are forced to accept the fact, that for several years when Clinton was president, and even the first year Bush was president, federal receipts were greater than federal outlays, and debt held by the public was reduced.

Then apparently you should learn what the numbers mean.

It's very simple math, you spent more than you took in, you increased your debt. You spend less than than you took in, you decreased your debt.

Your problem is twofold. One you don't understand the numbers, and two, you don't want to understand them, because the truth conflicts with the lie you want so badly to believe.

The numbers on the debt simply do not lie.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

This does:

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which doesn't match up with Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual now does it?

Note all your numbers are "adjusted". Which of course is how you can claim it. Don't like the number, just say it's something other than what it is and call it "adjusted for XXX".

Fact remains, not one year since 1957 has the government decreased the debt. Not one.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Which doesn't match up with Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual now does it?

Note all your numbers are "adjusted". Which of course is how you can claim it. Don't like the number, just say it's something other than what it is and call it "adjusted for XXX".

Fact remains, not one year since 1957 has the government decreased the debt. Not one.

So I guess you are no reading the whole chart. Predictable.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

So I guess you are no reading the whole chart. Predictable.

Read it, and your chart is useless, as it requires "adjustment" to the actual numbers to look better.

Reality however states plainly (see 2 posts above) that there have been no reductions to the debt.

No matter how much you wish and click your heels, those ruby slippers aren't taking you anywhere but bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Read it, and your chart is useless, as it requires "adjustment" to the actual numbers to look better.

Reality however states plainly (see 2 posts above) that there have been no reductions to the debt.

No matter how much you wish and click your heels, those ruby slippers aren't taking you anywhere but bankruptcy.

It clearly displays the unadjusted numbers. You must have trouble with math.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

It clearly displays the unadjusted numbers. You must have trouble with math.

Since they don't match treasury's numbers, apparently I don't have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

It clearly displays the unadjusted numbers. You must have trouble with math.

True....but if you look at the unadjusted number they just keep going up!

You may notice that prior to the year 2000 the "adjusted" figure is always higher than the unadjusted figure but beginning in 2000 that trend reverses...I wonder why?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Since they don't match treasury's numbers, apparently I don't have a problem with it.

Maybe you should buy a calculator and get someone to teach you how to use it?

09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00

From the chart:

1982-1985 (Reagan) 1,187 (in billions unadjusted)

I'll concede that the numbers do not match, but the chart actually underestimates. which means that Reagan during those years increased the debt as a percentage of the GDP by over 50%. SHould I go through Bush's numbers too?

Here is another chart.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00

From the chart:

1982-1985 (Reagan) 1,187 (in billions unadjusted)

I'll concede that the numbers do not match, but the chart actually underestimates. which means that Reagan during those years increased the debt as a percentage of the GDP by over 50%. SHould I go through Bush's numbers too?

Here is another chart.

Go ahead, perhaps when you go through Clinton's and Carter's you'll figure out the debt went up, not down there too.

By conceding the numbers don't match, you admit the numbers you have there are pure fabrication.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Go ahead, perhaps when you go through Clinton's and Carter's you'll figure out the debt went up, not down there too.

By conceding the numbers don't match, you admit the numbers you have there are pure fabrication.

Poor 9aces. He struggles on, boat against the current, trying against all reason to infer that fiscal policy was no better under Clinton than it was under, say, Reagan, Bush, or Bush.

Motor on, 9aces, motor on.

You guys should be watching the debate.
Ron Paul is sounding better and better.

Originally Posted by jpn

Poor 9aces. He struggles on, boat against the current, trying against all reason to infer that fiscal policy was no better under Clinton than it was under, say, Reagan, Bush, or Bush.

Motor on, 9aces, motor on.

The debt numbers don't lie. Your argument for Clinton was "we were drowning a little slower".

Your current is carrying you over the cliff and you're happy because you're clearly moving quickly in some direction. Watch that sudden stop at the bottom, it's a killer.