New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Doubling National Debt from previous Administration is NORMAL

Lobato1

Mayor
The Tax Cheat Mitt’s harangue in the debate of Prez Obama having “DOUBLED” the National Debt from the previous administration is outright deceitful & in his words not mine:
Number three, I'll make government more efficient & to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies & departments.
My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way.
This is the approach we have to take to get America to a balanced budget.
The president said he'd cut the deficit in half.


“Unfortunately, he doubled it.”


Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years.

My Reference on the transcript of the Oct. 3, 2012 debate: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/debate-transcript/index.html
This is deceitful at best or & an outright LIE (you choose) when the Tax Cheat Mitt omits that with the exception of the Clinton Administration that had to deal with the catastrophic legacy of the Reagan/Bush Sr administration, all other GOP administrations have at least “DOUBLED” the National Debt & it has particularly been worse under the tenure of Republican Administrations.

Specifically & to the point:


9/30/1981= End of Carter Fiscal Year
$997,855,000,000.00 = Total National Debt
$698,840,000,000.00 = National Debt from previous administration
$299,015,000,000.00 = National Debt increase from previous Administration
4.0 = Years of Administration
$74,702,583,846.68 = Increase per Year
179% = % Increase per year from previous Administration



9/30/1993 = End of Reagan/Bush Sr. Fiscal Year
$4,411,488,883,139.38 = Total National Debt
$997,855,000,000.00 = National Debt from previous administration
$3,413,633,883,139.38 = National Debt increase from previous Administration
12.0 = Years of Administration
$284,274,781,507.16 = Increase per Year
381% = % Increase per year from previous Administration



9/30/2001 = End of Clinton Fiscal Year
$5,807,463,412,200.06 = Total National Debt
$4,411,488,883,139.38 = National Debt from previous administration
$1,395,974,529,060.68 = National Debt increase from previous Administration
8.0 = Years of Administration
$174,377,379,571.24 Increase per Year
61% = % Increase per year from previous Administration



9/30/2009 = End of Bush Jr Fiscal Year
$11,909,829,003,511.70 = Total National Debt
$5,807,463,412,200.06 = National Debt from previous administration
$6,102,365,591,311.64 = National Debt increase from previous Administration
8.0 = Years of Administration
$762,273,593,712.78 = Increase per Year
437% = % Increase per year from previous Administration


10/2/2012 = Date Calc of present Obama Administration
$16,171,037,343,408.50 = Total National Debt
$11,909,829,003,511.70 = National Debt from previous administration
$4,261,208,339,896.80 = National Debt increase from previous Administration
3.01 = Years of Administration
$1,416,521,898,053.13 = Increase per Year
186% = % Increase per year from previous Administration or 1.86 & the doubling reference of the Tax Cheat Mitt’s deceit.


My Reference on the National debt for you to check it out: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np





BTW:
A 2nd deceitful practice the Tax Cheat Mitt is using is citing the 3 or 4 trillion dollar National debt increase that the number means absolutely nothing unless a reference is given for comparison.

Specifically & to the point: the 3.500 Trillion increase from the Reagan/Bush Sr era means nothing 30 years later unless we compare it to the 997 Billion historical debt from all previous administrations to realize that the National Debt increased a catastrophic almost five times (442% in exact numbers).

A 2nd method of comparison is to use constant dollars multiplication factors to adjust for inflation but since inflation rates have never been constant in relation to the year referenced, this method gets complicated.


Best Regards

Lobato1
 

Lobato1

Mayor
No takers huh? Why am I not surprised?

Or maybe the numbers & math associated with the simple word "Doubling" went over their heads.

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1
 

TaiPan

Council Member
Or maybe the numbers & math associated with the simple word "Doubling" went over their heads.

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1
Part of the problem is you are making it complicated, by confusing the terms deficit and debt. You increase debt by having deficits i.e., being over budget, but being over budget doesn't necessarily increase your debt. Take your Carter Admin figures for example.

If your initial debt was $997 bil and total debt increased by 179% then Debt at end would have been
$1.737 Trillion at the end of the Carter Admin. Your figures place the increase at $299 billion increase for a total of $1.296 Tril or 30% increase in National debt. I think you have also assumed that a dolllar in deficit spending equates on a 1 to 1 basis with increases in the National Debt which is not the case.

The problem here is that people tend to look at the government's debt like they do their household debt and its just not that simple an equation. Just as an example in some states corporate debt is treated as an asset rather than a liability, although the interest paid on the debt is a liability. But I return to what I see as the singular problem in your post which is that deficits and debt are not one and the same thing, and the percentages reported seem to be a bit off.

Tai Pan
 

Lobato1

Mayor
Debt versus Deficit terms: But my reference was only on the “National Debt”

& the reason I cited only the end results to our National Debt to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings in relation to my reference citing the National Debt.



As It was & by trying to keep it as simple as possible by having omitted carrying the National Debt line from a previous administration to the following administration has led you to having mistaken the numbers for the Carter administration & the reason I have now edited my original post by duplicating that line to the following in italics & small print.



Best Regards

Lobato1




Part of the problem is you are making it complicated, by confusing the terms deficit and debt. You increase debt by having deficits i.e., being over budget, but being over budget doesn't necessarily increase your debt. Take your Carter Admin figures for example.

If your initial debt was $997 bil and total debt increased by 179% then Debt at end would have been
$1.737 Trillion at the end of the Carter Admin. Your figures place the increase at $299 billion increase for a total of $1.296 Tril or 30% increase in National debt. I think you have also assumed that a dolllar in deficit spending equates on a 1 to 1 basis with increases in the National Debt which is not the case.

The problem here is that people tend to look at the government's debt like they do their household debt and its just not that simple an equation. Just as an example in some states corporate debt is treated as an asset rather than a liability, although the interest paid on the debt is a liability. But I return to what I see as the singular problem in your post which is that deficits and debt are not one and the same thing, and the percentages reported seem to be a bit off.

Tai Pan
 

Dino

Russian Asset
So Biden would necessarily call Obama "unpatriotic" for doubling Bush's debt?

Awk-waaard!
 

EatTheRich

President
Taipan: it looks to me as if thhe percentage represents the average debt increase per year in one administration, compared with the average debt increase per year in the previous administration. So Carter increased the debt by $75 billion per year on average, 79% higher than Ford's annual average debt increase (not shown). Clinton increased the debt by $174 billion per average year, a 39% reduction from the average increase during theReagan-Bush years. Bush II increased the debt at 4.37 times the rate Clinton did, and so on.

Not artfully explained, but when you see where the numbers come from it puts the $4 trillion debt increase under Obama in context.
 

TaiPan

Council Member
I got that part of it, what I couldn't do given what I had was match the percentage to the total debt. Lobato has provided the necessary data in his revision. Also, and this is a point to consider as well, the 1st year of an administration, is budgeted by the previous administration, so actually, that year's increase belongs to the previous Administration and so on down the line. It tends to skew the numbers a bit as well.

Tai Pan
 

TaiPan

Council Member
That appears to be considered in the analysis, which begins with the first fiscal year under the new budget.
pk, by which you mean that the budget from the previous administration is not part of the new administration's record and the effect cascades downward to each succeeding one. Example the last Carter Budget terminates in the Reagan administration so the 1st Regan budge actually doesn't begin until the 2nd year of his term, and the deficits etc are calculated from that point . correct >

Tai Pan
 

EatTheRich

President
1st Reagan budget is proposed in February 1981 and goes into effect in October 1981. The last Caarter budget runs from October 1980 to the end of September 1981, roughly for the first year of Reagan's term. The analysis above includes the 9 months of the Reagan administration oprrating under a budget drawn up by Carter under Carter and not under Reagan.
 

TaiPan

Council Member
ok, under your recording each administration gets some of the credit or the blame for its predecessor's budget. So long as its across the board, its a fair accounting.

Tai Pan
 

EatTheRich

President
1. It's not mine.

2. The original poster compares the 4 fiscal yeats under the Carter budget (which were in effect during the Carter and Reagan administration) with the 4 years of the Ford bidget (which took place during the Ford and Carter administrations). I.e., he understood that the first 9 months of the Carter admin. were under the Ford budget and assignes the "credit or blame" for them to Ford, who came up with the 1976-1977 budget, not to Carter, who became president in 1977. Learn to read.
 

TaiPan

Council Member
I read very well, thank you and have been since the second grade. When you make assumptions about data then you make mistakes. Lobato reinserted the data which while missing caused me some confusion. And I appreciate your correcting some additional points, but please do not mistake my questions for ignorance or inability to understand. I just like to know what I am looking at and what assumptions have been built into the data, before I draw conclusions as to its ability to support the stated premise.

Tai Pan
 

Lobato1

Mayor
You are correct & mea culpa because I did re-edit TP when I saw confusion it created

Ergo: I copied the lines from one administration as a legacy & pasted those lines in fine print & Italic to the following administration.

My apologies.

Best Regards

Lobato1


I read very well, thank you and have been since the second grade. When you make assumptions about data then you make mistakes. Lobato reinserted the data which while missing caused me some confusion. And I appreciate your correcting some additional points, but please do not mistake my questions for ignorance or inability to understand. I just like to know what I am looking at and what assumptions have been built into the data, before I draw conclusions as to its ability to support the stated premise.

Tai Pan
 

TaiPan

Council Member
Ergo: I copied & pasted the lines in fine print & Italic from one administration as a legacy to the following administration.

My apologies.

Best Regards

Lobato1

None required, I was a bit confused by the percentages, that's all, and you straightened out the confusion, thank you and it was a good, informative post.

Tai Pan
 
Top