After researching.... (U.S. based)

@AidaLily (1450)
United States
February 17, 2012 10:45am CST
You know I have had a few disagreements with people on politics. One of the most notable things would be the dislike of President Obama since they claimed that the word 'TRILLION' was only used to described the nation's debt when it came to Obama which struck me as odd to say the least. Doing the calculations even if he was spending 100 billion a month as 1,000 billion equals 1 trillion it would have never got up to that much. I would have only been 1 trillion a year for the most part which is only 4 trillion dollars and the nation is at about 14.071 trillion dollars in debt. By using basic accounting (which yes I understand most U.S. citizens aren't accountants) it shows the country was trillions of dollars in debt BEFORE he even took office. Someone else is more than welcomed to do the math but unless they come up with some crazy off the wall allowances you can not say Obama racked up 14 trillion in debt in his term as president. So I went to the library, researched old newspapers, searched online, read old books, and so on because not even the last president could have completely done that on his own. Though most Americans will never research any of this and just say well...no its the way the which ever party told me it was. U.S. National Debt: 1791 - $75, 463, 476.52 1803 - $80, 727, 120.88 1812-1814 - $99, 833, 000.15 1817 - $123, 491, 905.16 1829-1837 - 124 million to 48 million 1842 - $13, 594, 480.73 1850 - $63, 452, 773.55 1860 - $64, 842, 287.88 7/31/1861 - $90, 580, 873.72 during the war - $1, 119, 772, 138.63 7/31/1866 - $2, 680, 647, 809.74 1865-1869 - $2, 588, 452, 213.94 For about 15 years it stayed at $1, 617, 372, 419.53 1916 - $3, 609, 244, 262.16 1918 - $14, 592, 161, 414.00 1919 - $27, 390, 113, 120.00 1929 - $16, 931, 088, 489.10 1930 - $16, 185, 309, 831.43 1933 - $22, 538, 672, 560.00 1939 - $40, 439, 532, 411.11 1941 - $42, 967, 531, 037.00 1945 - $258, 682, 187, 409.00 1952 - $259, 105, 178, 785.43 1953 - $275, 168, 120, 129.39 1960 - $290, 216, 815, 241.68 1963 - $309, 346, 845, 059.00 1969 - $368, 225, 581, 254.41 1974 - $469, 898, 039, 554.70 1975 - $653, 544, 000, 000.00 1980 - $930, 210, 000, 000.00 Now for a few presidents people know well around this time. Any in-between president would have more debt. 1988 President Ronald Reagan (R) was the first president to have the word TRILLION attached to his name whether it was highly publicized or not since the national debt was: $2, 602, 337, 712, 041.16 Don't want to believe it. Check your local library for old newspapers and books, search the net, etc. you will find it. 1992 President George H. Bush (R) .. National Debt $4, 064, 620, 655, 521.66 And of course with trillions of dollars in debt.. you can only go up since the country became more expensive to run... When Clinton (D) left office in 2000 the nation debt was $5, 674, 209, 886, 860.00 When G. W. Bush (R) left office in 2009 that had almost doubled with the national debt being $10, 024, 724, 896, 912.49 President Obama (D) 14.071 trillion and based on the two terms of G. W. Bush he has spent less money. However, the point is EVERY president since Ronald Reagan that has entered office has had the word TRILLION attached to their names. Maybe every day American citizens should actually learn about economics before automatically assuming they what they hear in paid media is correct.
1 person likes this
9 responses
• United States
17 Feb 12
Aidalily, the first thing you will learn about the politics section is that it is dominated by right wingers, who ignore ANY facts that you bring up, because those "facts" didn't serve their purpose. Presenting facts to many on here is a complete waste of time, because of the above statement. The other thing you get on here all the time is the request to provide a source, yet they lack sources on their post. You will also notice that the VAST majority of post on here come from either World News Daily, or FOX News, which tells you what you are dealing with. The only thing I can tell you is good luck, and don't let the right wingers bring you down!!!
1 person likes this
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
17 Feb 12
Thank you. I am realizing that as I look through this section. Not too many people actually pay attention to much politics on either side, but I guess I probably wont get a decent discussion on here about it which is unfortunate. I am an independent thinker so I never look at things like the democrats did this or the republicans did that. I did point out that a republican was the first to have that big of a debt and if he was actually bringing in as much revenue as people said the debt wouldn't have gotten that large, but that is just simple logic I guess. I love debating but there is no point if people refuse to see things that might contradict their purposes for running. No person from either party will get me down since I consider myself a free thinker and as the post is pointing out.. I look at the larger picture and research things rather than let the media tell me how I am supposed to think. Thanks for the encouragement. I will do my best to remember people think media based rather than research based.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
17 Feb 12
Great. You just made the case for the Republican side. Yes, economics is a fascinating field. Let me make a couple of points that your provide numbers actually say. 1. President Obama spent more in 3 years than President Bush did in 8. 2. America has a spending problem. 3. The part that concerns most economists is the debt number when compared to the GDP or Gross Domestic Product. You can consider the GDP a financial outlook of what the country is basically worth. 4. That is abundantly clear that the number needs to come down dramatically. What you really should be doing is comparing those numbers to the overall GDP during the same time period. You might find some interesting trends. One more thing, you should post your sources so the numbers can be verified. PS. Your debt numbers for President Andrew Jackson appear to be a little too high. He was actually the one President dedicated to paying down the debt. (Almost had it paid off before he left the Presidency.)
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
18 Feb 12
Actually if you would check my sources before responding, then you should have realized that the time period was in fact reduced from about 124 million to 48 million. He was not completely able to pay it off before leaving. Go to the LIBRARY there are quite a few books on President Jackson... please go do your homework on that. With all due respect, I posted that my sources were gotten at a library which the majority of America doesn't realize exist anymore. I also stated that if someone questioned my sources to go read old newspapers and other such financial archives at their local library. I said to NOT search the internet because hard copies are better evidence than a website a person can put together in five minutes. Also... this was because people like most of the people who will post to these things wont read anything. It was basically for all the media, internet, desperately need some technology to tell them what is going on in the world to realize that its stupid for hating someone because media makes them think that one person racked up 14 trillion in debt. Whether you are smart enough to tell the difference or to do math wasn't the real point of this. Pay attention to some of the people you may talk with. Some of them will tell you that the word trillion was only used with Obama and that is why they dislike him. Nothing about failed policies, etc. Please also read thoroughly before responding because you showed nothing more than you picked out the parts you didn't like and responded. Thank you. As a side note, whether you vote republican or democrat this year... the country is screwed. The republican candidates aren't much better than Obama and until they focus on the economy with decent plans or anything that needs to be worried about ... (by the way love Romney's health care plan which is strangely very very similar to Obama's .) then the country is screwed either way. But have fun watching the media which ever media you watch and letting them make your final decision for you.
• United States
18 Feb 12
Yes, he did wind up with debt. But for exactly one year, President Andrew Jackson had no national debt. No other President in History can claim that status. (In our times, he would have also been called our most racist President but that's another discussion.) The word trillion wasn't only used with President Obama. Again, this is just a snippet from people who weren't listening to the whole argument. It was used with Bush. It just didn't get as much attention. The thing with Ronald Reagan is that he actually had a pretty good economy so it wasn't quite as big a deal either. However, President Obama is the first President to spend a TRILLION more a year than is collected in taxes. I didn't pick out the parts I didn't like. I merely stated the obvious conclusions based on your numbers. I am curious what part of those statements did you disagree with? Your numbers bear out that President Obama spent as much or more in three years than President Bush did in eight. It is impossible to argue with that fact. Because it is so obviously blatant in the numbers provided. America has always had a "spending" problem. The reason it is considered so bad now is that it is so very close to the total GDP. That's why I asked you to compare the debt with the GDP. You accuse me of not paying attention but take a closer listen to what the economist are saying in regards to both the debt ratio and GDP. The debt ratio is the worrying part of the equation. It is the main reason why Greece can't be bailed out despite the Government loans. Again, this is not a political opinion but basic mathematics. I do know one thing. I am not voting for a President who is completely ignorant of basic economics. President Obama has proved that little statement time and time again. You really should look at the numbers on his current Budget program. Once again, the spending numbers are out of control.
• United States
18 Feb 12
Yes, the reason I asked for your sources was for verification of facts. You can still include library sources. It is your case, you argument, it is up to you to provide the evidence to back up your claims. That's part of making your argument factual rather than another opinion.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
17 Feb 12
The other thing that affects the National Debt is the revenue that the government is receiving from taxes. Yes President Reagan had a large debt but he also had record revenue from taxes. However a raising debt and shrinking revenue is not good for economic growth. the problem with President Obama and the debt is he is borrowing to make up for lost tax revenue and is borrowing to start new programs which would be like a person who has a debt but is working and earning more money borrowing money to improve his house. What we see with the government now is a person who is maxed out their credit card debt and has had his income cut going to the bank and wanting to borrow money to go on a vacation. President Obama has increased spending and has not grown the government income at the same time.
• United States
17 Feb 12
Bob, so you are saying that it is fine to spend more as long as you are making more? If I ran my business like that I would NEVER get a loan from ANY bank, or grow my business in a responsible way. There are many reasons that government income hasn't gone up, the fact that we are digging out of the worse economic collapse the country has seen in 70 years is a big one. Have you ever looked at how long it took the US to get out of the great depression? I will save you sometime: NOT 3 YEARS!!!!! The economy is starting to come around, and if you can't see that then you need to open you eyes!!!! If Obama turns this country around in 4 years from the Bushrepression than he deserves a second term, a third term, a fourth term.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
17 Feb 12
That is not the only thing that affects national debt. By that standard we shouldn't be in debt at all. Other factors that affect national debt would include things like wars unsupported by U.S. citizens since in most times of war thousands of jobs are created, but if you have the country divided or not fully supporting a war than you don't have tax revenue because no one is working to support the war in the jobs created. How about paying presidents once they leave office for years after wards and their own secret service? How about having lots of programs dating back to when other presidents were in office that all do the same thing in different capacities? The size of the country went up which means more costs are added to protect or help or train personnel and so on. The country is not free to run and if President Reagan had such great, record revenue from taxes which you say affect national debt, then please explain to me how he was the first president to rack up over a trillion dollars in national debt. Where did the money from the tax revenue go?
@bestboy19 (5482)
• United States
18 Feb 12
Looking at your chart, maybe we should find out what economic policies Andrew Jackson and John Tyler had to go from a debt of 1829-1837 - 124 million to 48 million 1842 - $13, 594, 480.73. Even though we do, we shouldn't blame all our debt on the President. The Congress has a big hand in it.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
18 Feb 12
:) Yeah we probably should. They had to have been doing something right for it to go down. The biggest jumps when I research it where during war times that the American people didn't support which surprisingly there are a lot. There is a book which I believe was called 'the true history of America' or something very similar that I read to get some of the numbers. America seemed to deploy troops or go on many (some not as publicized) wars and "helping/freedom" fights that racked up a lot of debt during the time of the president. I did not look up John Tyler, but I read up some on Andrew Jackson in books like 'The life of Andrew Jackson' and the book 'Andrew Jackson' and there was one other one. Finally.. I could hug you right now. There is finally another person who realizes that Congress has a big hand in the spending and doesn't give the auto well this president spent this much, and this president spent more argument with no problems with congress passing these expensive laws and such. People do blame the presidents. I don't blame Bush but I do blame the idiots that let him do it. Same with Obama.
@flowerchilde (12520)
• United States
18 Feb 12
What people who are concerned about this are concerned about is the projected cost of President O'bama's healthcare bill.. It's biting off quite a bit.. Also the projected cost thus far many believe is far below what it will really cost, as it's believed many work places will be ceasing healthcare insurance coverage, preferring instead to pay the fine which will be far less in price than the health insurance coverage, therefor many more will be dependent upon the health insurance provided by the government/taxpayers. Aldo of concern is government has to grow larger with much larger reach and scope to administer such a huge program.. also of consideration to many is how government seems to be very slow and lumbering with its bureaucracy, lacking the efficiency of free market services which are using their own money to run things not other people's money, thus ever more debt.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
18 Feb 12
That is perfectly fine. I honestly don't want to vote Obama or a republican this year. They both are really just.. out of touch. As for the healthcare plan, I don't agree with it either, but I believe one of the republican candidates has a similar health care plan while the other speaks out on "moral" issues that are supposed to be a big thing and its all really just a headache and we as Americans should be ashamed at letting ANY of these people run the country. I do believe that we wouldn't have been in so much debt if not for pushed bailouts and expensive legislation from both sides. I posted this because you get a vast majority of people who don't name the policies or anything but say Obama spent 14 trillion in three years and that is there ONLY reason for not voting for him. I don't even think that is humanly possible.
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I don't know where you've been hearing about politics, but the word Trillion didn't start with Obama. I even remember late night comics making jokes about Bush 41 having over $4 trillion in debt. It was also a central point of Ross Perot's campaign against Bush in 1992. When asked if he had the experience necessary to be president he pointed out that he does not have any experience in running up 4 trillion dollars in debt. Now here's where you may have misunderstood the use of trillion as being unique to Obama. You are talking about the national DEBT, which as we know has been over a trillion for several decades. Obama was the first president to run an annual DEFICIT of over $1 trillion and he's done it almost every year since he took office.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
18 Feb 12
What I was saying was there are people, a lot of them, who will tell you that trillion was only used with Obama. They will swear up and down that he is the one who racked up 14 trillion in debt in three years. Has he racked up 4 trillion of it? Yes. I am not by any means disputed that fact. However, those people believe he has done 14 trillion of it. I even asked the question randomly for a beta test questionnaire on a site which allows you to ask people and watch their discussions. In watching conversations for a few hours, at least 90% of them said Obama racked up 14 trillion in debt. There is no way.. to fully do that in three years unless you are literally doing something stupid like paying millions for each speck of dirt you might find. Sadly, it is a lot of identified republicans and less but a decent number of democrats who believe that the word Trillion started and is exclusive to Obama. Most people aren't always up to watch late night TV which is why they may not have paid attention to that. A woman at the family center I belong to tried to convince me that Bush II didn't rack up any debt during office and she says she is republican and fully believes Obama racked up all 14 trillion of it. Perhaps Republicans should help other republicans not make such off the wall statements and tell them about things like this. I am an independent and I don't believe in either party to be honest. They have both screwed over the majority of american people whether people want to see it or not. Both sides have had great policies.. and both have had failed policies.
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I don't get what you're saying. You're saying that nobody claimed we were trillions of dollars in debt until Obama took office? I really wasn't aware of that. From late 2002 to 2008, I heard every time I watched the news about how much money Bush was spending compared to Clinton, and that he was running up our debt--trillions in debt--faster than any president. It was one of the one million criticisms Bush II dealt with. And rightfully so! Now it's one of the one million criticisms Obama is dealing with. And rightfully so! He is growing our debt faster than any president before. It's like Bush was Danny DeVito and is now suddenly Arnold - the bigger, stronger twin! What's your point about economics here? Economics isn't why it's costing more to run the country. Economics = math in your context, and numbers going up with every president doesn't mean that it simply costs more to do business because it costs more to do business. There's a rhyme and reason to everything. It means America's government is exponentially expanding, from defense spending and entitlements to state and business bailouts and backed student and business loans. There's a reason the cost of doing business goes up. Some people just aren't going to throw their hands up in the air and say, "Ah, phuck it! Bush spent trillions, so now I gotta STFU when Obama spends more trillions." Some folks want the spending to stop. We do not have to spend all this money. Obama's been adding over a trillion to the budget in deficit spending every year in office. He has taken the stance that America can spend its way to prosperity. That's not a dig; that's 100% the truth. That's his stance. Now he's gotta be a big boy and take the hits if it's not working out as he said it would. Things are as simple as they seem sometimes. This is one of those times. Obama's spending too much money, and it doesn't matter that other presidents spent too much money. They did. We know they did. But that's past tense. Other presidents slaughtered innocent people, enslaved people, kept people in concentration camps, dropped WMD on nations - but we wouldn't turn a blind eye when the new president does it. You're supposed to learn from mistakes, not double down on them.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
17 Feb 12
This was because there are a lot people obviously not you because you admit that the word was used for other presidents, but a lot of people will tell you they hate Obama because 'no president ever put the nation trillions of dollars in debt' and not failed policies or anything like that. Its like they have only heard now the country was trillions in debt. I have spoken with people whether online, at the local coffee shop we have here, or other such places and they will all tell you that Obama put the country 14 trillion in debt on his own. This was just facts for people who don't realize the country was in a large amount of debt before this. It costs money to run the country and a lot of presidents have screwed up depending on where they put tax breaks, pushing for wars that the American people didn't support which causes less jobs to be created to support the wars and the government borrowing to pay for them, paying large salaries with low taxes to officials when they leave office, multiple government offices for literally the same thing and some that have large budgets when they don't do anything, etc. Yes, there are budget cuts BOTH sides need to make it doesn't matter if he stays in office or not. The debt was steady at times when there weren't unsupported wars, less people, more job growth and other factors that go into that.
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
17 Feb 12
Actually your entire premise is flawed from the get go. The flaw lies in your initial statement that "as 1,000 billion equals 1 trillion". Actually, 10 times 100 billion is a trillion, so it only takes 10 months to rack up a trillion at 100 billion a month.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I apologize for that I did type it wrong from the notebook I took to the library with me. Yes, unlike most people I can admit my mistakes. I was in fact more interested in writing the actual numbers down for the different time periods that I wrote the conversion down wrong. The other numbers based on older newspapers and such from those times and old archives that the library kept are in fact what was written down. Feel free to go to a library to check. I double checked things on the net since people claim things are done that make newspapers from the era and such obsolete but I didn't base them off of there since hard copies are more reliable in my opinion. Thank you for answering. Even at then.. its still not enough to rack up 14 trillion of it in four years. 4 trillion easily, but not 14 trillion.
1 person likes this
@amko1of1 (69)
• United States
19 Feb 12
ok first off your math is completely wrong. You say that Bush spent more money well yes thats true, by, according to your figures, by about 305 billion dollars, but here is the catch, that was in 8 years, meaning Obama has added to the national debt a sum of only 305 billion dollars less in 1 term as Bush added in 2 terms. Second Obama has the word trillion added to his name because he is the first president ever to have a budget deficit, meaning the amount added to the overall national debt, that was over 1 trillion dollars. Bush's deficits were around 500-600 billion per year. So yes every president since Reagan has had over a trillion dollar national debt figure, but their deficits were significantly less, for instance Clinton even had a budget surplus during part of his time in office, meaning the overall national debt went down. American's as a whole dont know a whole lot about economics, but they do understand the facts, and the facts are that Obama came into office hoping to reduce the deficits that Bush had, but instead he came in and doubled the budget deficits per year in just 1 term. That also almost lead to a default on our loans and will surely lead to inflation in the future. Those are economic facts and Americans can surely see that.