Good evening,

I write here today because of something I find extremely important. Once again I am seeing pure lies emanate from the DNC/Administration and those that support them.

Here is that graph

1)This graph is factually and mathematically inaccurate
2)This graph is purposefully misleading into the question of what about debt is important
3)Reagan did increase the deficit, with a democratic or split congress thanks to spending increases throughout his presidency.
4)Reagan was able to pay for some of those increases in spending by increasing revenue over his term while cutting tax rates.
5)I will go through every step of the process of figuring out where the debt comes from and who is responsible.

This graph contends that Barack Obama’s debt accumulation was far less severe then any republican president since 1980. Wow does that ever look bad for a conservative doesn’t it? It certainly would if it had any modicum of truth to it, and also if the actual statistic had any true relevance to the question of debt added. Neither of these are true, and I will explain both the factual and philosophical problems with this graph’s intention.

Hopefully you can bear with me through this, as mathematical analysis is truly boring to most people.

First we need to ascertain the total debt accrued by each president in comparison with his debt upon taken the reigns of the presidency. The numbers do not start in January for each president, but in September as to simulate the fact that most policies made to change course in the economy take time to take effect to start to effect change in either direction.

Ronald Reagan started with a total national debt of 900 Billion dollars. He ended his presidency with a total national debt of 2.6 Trillion dollars in debt. This is a difference of 1.7 Trillion dollars. Percentage of increase on national debt was 189%.

George H W Bush started with a total national debt of 2.6 trillion dollars. He added 1.6 Trillion to the debt for an end total of 4.2 Trillion dollars. Percentage increase on national debt during his presidency was 62%.

Bill Clinton started with a total of 4.2 Trillion dollars in total national debt. He added 1.5 trillion in debt by the end of his presidency taking the total debt to 5.7 Trillion dollars. Percentage increase of national debt during his presidency was 36%.

George W Bush started his presidency at a total of 5.7 Trillion dollars in national debt. He added 6.1 Trillion dollars in debt to end his presidency with a total of 11.8 Trillion dollars. Percentage increase of national debt during his presidency was 107%.

Barack Obama started his presidency with a total of 11.8 Trillion dollar national debt. He has increased it since then by 3.5 Trillion dollars to a total of 15.3 Trillion dollars at the moment. This percentage increase was 30% at this point.

So if you believe that what is important is who increased the debt by the highest percentage compared to the debt he inherited…while the chart is proven an outright lie its premise seems to be correct. The problem with this thought process, is that this statistic is completely useless. If Obama had accumulated the debt he has since taking office in 1980 he would have increased the national debt by nearly 400%.

There are two stats as would be applicable to debt per president that must be taken into account. The first is debt accumulated per year. The second is the debt to GDP ratio increase per president.

Ronald Reagan accumulated 1.7 trillion in debt over 8 years. That amounts to 212.5 billion per year. George HW Bush averaged 390 billion per year. Bill Clinton averaged 195 billion per year. George W Bush averaged 752 billion per year. Obama so far has averaged 1.13 trillion dollars per year.

Ronald Reagan started out with a spending to GDP ratio of 21.7% and he ended with a debt to GDP ration of 21.3% . George H W Bush started with a spending ratio of 21.2% and ended with a ratio of 21.4% an increase of 1%. Bill Clinton started at 21.4% and ended at 18.5%. George W Bush started at 18.5% and ended at 20.7. Barack Obama started with 25% and this past year was 25.3%.

Barack Obama has had two years where the debt was increased by greater then 10% of total GDP in one year!

Going into Ronald Reagan’s presidency the debt ratio was 33% to GDP. It increased to 52% in 8 years. 2.4% per year. Revenue’s in todays dollars went from 517 billion per year to 909 billion per year. That is 75% growth in GDP in that same time period inflation was 43.6%. Majority of GDP growth vs inflation was after the much maligned tax cuts that were passed. The only tax increases that Reagan signed into law was a deal to cut spending 3 dollars for every 2 dollars that were raised by more or less eliminating tax credits, and those cuts never came to fruition causing him to say he’ll never “make a deal with democrats again” and the same ploy cost GHW Bush reelection “read my lips no new taxes”. He brought the top rate from 70%! to 28% and…revenues didn’t go down vs inflation. Obama took over with 85% to GDP, and has since gone to 102% of GDP. 17% in 3 years an average per year growth vs. GDP of 5.7%.

That puts things in a bit better perspective, but its not the entire story. After all those who know our constitution know that the executive only decides to spend the money allotted for each program. It is congress that actually allots the money to do so. Over the past 31+ years each party has controlled congress for 12 years and we have had split congress for 7+. Democratic congress’s average 616 billion per year in control. Split congress averages 415 billion per year. Republican congress’s average is 317 billion per year.

It is ok to have a different philosophy and ideology. It is even ok to argue (wrongly) that the deficit will never cause any problems long term (to which I point to greece). But you must do your homework before spreading propaganda. The graphic above is not only a lie, its a deliberate manipulation geared to confuse the real debate. The premise is wrong, the statistics are a lie, and its intent is to confuse enough people for those that care about the deficit and which direction it is headed to vote for the man who has voted for the most massive increase in domestic spending since the New Deal in the face of crippling long term consequences for all that can see.

None of these numbers include unfunded liabilities that will be incurred soon because of the influx of people in my parents generation joining the rolls of social security, medicare, and medicare part d. The blame is bipartisan, the solution exists outside the establishment of either party. We can no longer just hope for inaction of government to bring it back to earth like we attempted to do in the 90’s. We can no longer just sit back and trust our leaders that state allegiance to the party we most closely identify with will fix the problem. This problem will only be fixed if we the people continue to purge and pressure congress and the presidency to deal with the long term problems our debt and unfunded liabilities will impose on us all. Not just our children, but to all who live in the next 20 years.

We can no longer sit on our hands particularly when none of the candidates for the presidency seem willing to lead in all that is necessary in order to correct this problem. In my view, I’m not sure our country survives another four years of these policies particularly if it allows the tax rate to go back up for everyone. And be aware, the bush tax cuts (as there were two) both affected middle class and lower tax rates, and the first only affected those. Therefore allowing the old rates to come back will effect all of our tax rates, and cost us the very jobs needed to sustain our capitalistic society that are currently starved by statist keynesian controlled economic policies that have dominated the past century. Do not believe the lie that this is progress. This is a devolution to at best the model laid out by FDR, and at worst a continuance in thought that leads to a place that looks very much like a post-republic Rome where the president grabs the power, only never to lay it back down. We do not need a repeat of Caesar.

Advertisements