-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2” Review by Aiptcomics.com
- AFRO SAMURAI’S Takashi Okazaki Brings Manga Flair to STAR TREK: DEFIANT Comics
- Out Today: “Star Trek: Lower Decks (2024) #2”
- Out Today: “Star Trek #27”
- New Star Trek Book: “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock – The Making of the Classic Film”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to J.M. Dillard!
- “Star Trek: Picard: Firewall” Review by Theforgottenfiction.com
- RIP David A. McIntee
- John Jay Alumnus Derek Attico Discusses New Autobiography at Book Talk
- Preview of “Star Trek: Lower Decks #2”
- Movie Related Products
- ‘Subscribers Were Overwhelmed’: How Disney Made Streaming Profitable
- Silo ordered for full four season run
- “The Muppet Christmas Carol” Review
- Alex Garland at the BFI – The VFX in Civil War | Framestore
- STAR WARS FILIBUSTER: Patton Oswalt’s Rant Animated – Geek Week
- The WWE Network Is Officially Shutting Down Ahead Of Netflix Move
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Music Video DB
This website brought to you by The Tiki Web Group Unless specifically mentioned, we have no clue where this content came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory! All comments and content are the sole possesion of the commenters and members of the community and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS.
Looks like they are all spending my childrens money that hasnt even been earned yet.
A pox on all their houses
Where is the factual information at?
Source: Treasury Department.
google it – I just did, seems to be the truth.
Even as I admit coming from a Republican die-hard family… we can’t get away from the fact that when it came to the budget and economics of this country, we Republicans have been like fucking drunkin’ sailors.
Incorrect
Where it says “Source: Treasury Dept” It means to say “Source: Nancy Pilosi’s Facebook Page.”
The chart is bad on so many levels.
1) It uses different sources. Reagan/Bush I debt come from old OMBA data while the rest comes from Treasury. Both sources calculate differently.
2) Time in office. Obama’s low number is for around three years in office, the rest (with the exception of Bush I) was for eight.
3) Percent vs amount. If for example our debt is $100 and Reagan increases our debt 189%, our debt goes up $189. If our debt is $10000 and Obama increases it by 16%, it goes up $1600. Our total debt in 2004 was significantly larger than in 1980.
4) The chart outright lies. Under some presidents it shows the country’s gross debt, under others it shows public debt. If one number is better than the other, guess who gets the better numbers.
5) According to economists (I don’t understand it, but they all seem to agree for the most part), debt is irrelevant. What is important is debt as a percentage of the country’s GDP. In that case it has Clinton as best by far with a surplus, W with the smallest debt, and Obama with the worst by far in only 2 and a half years in office.
POLITICAL FLAME WAR… THE GUY YOU LIKE IS A COMMY…
Federal spending is out of control today. Something has to be done about it now. Only one President has any power over the spending which will happen in the next four years.
This Chart would make a LOT more sense if instead of the Presidents, you used the Speakers of the House, since THEY are the ones who decide what is going to be spent.
Would paint an ENTIRELY different Picture.
Oh, by the way, the Majority of “Bush’s Debt” WAS authorized by the Democrat Congress during Bush’s Final Term, but was actually SPENT during Obama’s First Term.
Here’s the ENTIRELY different picture – you got wrong.
Bush had a Republican Congress of both houses for the 6 out of 8 years in office. Tom Delay (TX) was the Speaker/Majority leader for Bush’s stay in office.
No matter what the congress passes, it still comes down to the President signing them or vetoing them. The President always has the last word. Let’s not kid ourselves here, the Democratic congress did not turn this upside down in just a mere two years.
I’m no fucking friend of Obama, but your analysis is just pure fantasy – What are you claiming? That somehow Obama walked into office and this pile of shit just fell onto his desk like magic. Really?
Obama spent much of that very early on cleaning up huge fucking mess by the previous imbecile. Paying off unpaid bills, saving the auto-industry, military budget, housing industry, repairing our foreign policies abroad and putting the two wars onto HIS own books (Bush refused to acknowledge these two wars onto his own budget).
Bush walked into office with one of the largest budget surpluses in history (Clinton’s) and wiped it in the first 7 months and then went on to borrow trillions from China to pay for his two wars.
It is common knowledge that when the Democrats took over congress for Bush’s last two years. Bush became a lame duck and the mad spending came to a screeching halt and thing’s began to reverse – the Democratic congress sent no increased budget bills to the White House to be signed in those last two years.
(btw -I don’t even live in your country – but even a first year poli-sci student abroad knows this shit – get out from in front of Fox Views, they’re polluting your mind)
Maybe YOU should watch some Fox News then you would know the IMPORTANT facts of the 110th (2006-2008) Congress: Senate President Pro Tem; (Leader of the Senate) Robert Byrd (Democrat West Virgina), Speaker of the House; Nancy Pelosi (Democrat California), need I remind you that the House is where all Budget Bills MUST originate as per the United States Constitution. As to “Mad Spending”, what do call Public Law 110-343, more commonly known as TARP? That was Passed in October of 2008 raising the Debt Limit from $700 Billion (that’s with a “B”) to $11.3 Trillion (That’s with a “T”). When was that Money Spent? During the First two Years of Obama’s Administration while the House AND Senate was also Democrat. As for the Clinton “Surplus”, that was purely on Paper, it never really existed. The Surplus Consisted of Spending Cuts the Democrats had “Promised” to make, but somehow never got around to actually doing it.
haha…you said “FOX” and “Facts” in the same sentence.
Bullshit graph is bullshit. Aside from the problems pointed out above, the situations during their presidency have been vastly different, so direct comparisons are meaningless. Even if these graphs were legit (which they’re not), the global financial crisis, dealing with Saddam McNutjob, hurricane Katrina etc skew the numbers so far as to make it meaningless.
Disingenuous use of statistics and massive oversimplification ftl.
wildman, you better be careful with that…facts aren’t trusted sir.
percentages are not really reliable in this way….
200% of 100 is 200
20% of 1,000 is 200
like anon pointed out, this graph is for moronic, ignorant liberal faggots. percentages mean shit. the actual numbers is what speaks and onigger fucked us all.
Rule 1. If there’s a Democrat president, the President is responsible for the debt.
Rule 2. If not but there’s a Democrat Speaker of the House, the Speaker of the House is responsible.
Rule 3. If there’s no Democrat President and no Democrat Speaker of the House, who cares? “Deficits don’t matter.”– Dick Cheney.
Rule 4. Always use “Democrat” instead of “Democratic” when using the adjectival form, because it’s fun being an asshole.