Who REALLY blew up the debt?

[LWW]

THIS (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/) is a bit of a long winded piece from the left's beloved POLITIFACT.

It is long winded because it takes a bit to dissect the treacherous lies of demokrooks such as Nancy Pelosi and Gyorgy Soros's MOVEON.ORG.


The final review, after taking apart her spoon fed gibberish, the delicacy du jour so to speak, the final grade was:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

Now, to cut through the maths ... here was the truth, as opposed to Miss Nancy's deceit:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Debt vs. debt as a percentage of GDP: Some economists will tell you that it’s not the size of the debt per se, but rather the size of the debt relative to the nation’s gross domestic product. This helps minimize the complicating effect of economic cycles and inflation. So how do those numbers stack up? Using OMB statistics, here’s what we came up with, using public debt figures not adjusted for the president’s time in office:

Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

So by this measurement -- potentially a more important one -- Obama is the undisputed debt king of the last five presidents, rather than the guy who added a piddling amount to the debt, as Pelosi’s chart suggested. Of course, all this goes to show that statistics can be used -- and misused -- to bolster almost any argument. </div></div>

Oh ... I almost forgot ... what did Miss Nancy's office do when their treachery was exposed?

Repost the same gibberish, slightly less dishonest, as they had before:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After we presented our research to Pelosi's office, a spokesman acknowledged that the office had erred in assembling and posting the chart and that it was in the process of reposting it. The updated version – which corrects the mathematical error but not what we consider to be the three additional design flaws – can be found here. </div></div>

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/various_uploads/Chart_Pelosi_Real.jpg

OH DEAR! (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/19/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/)

[eg8r]

As much as I disliked Clinton, that chart sure makes it hard to continue.

eg8r

[LWW]

To a degree ... I agree.

Billy Jeff opposed every step towards deficit reduction, including vetoing welfare reform twice, yet has since wrapped himself in it.

OTOH ... the far left attempted character assassination against the (R) congress that took Clinton kicking and screaming to what needed to be done, and then immediately gave him sole credit for it once it worked.

Clinton's true gift was that he is undoubtedly the best politician this country has ever produced as well as the luckiest POTUS in history..

[Soflasnapper]

Billy Jeff opposed every step towards deficit reduction

A lie, plain and simple.

As is the caption '8 years with a Republican Congress,' considering it was 6 years with a Republican Congress, instead.

How ridiculous is the last chart? Obviously, Clinton did not cut 'the public debt' at all, let alone by so sizable a fraction. The y-axis is mislabeled, fraudulently.

But if we want to play along, by this measure, basically all presidents since FDR cut the public debt until Reagan came along (maybe Ford the one exception).

Why? Because the public debt measured as a percentage of the gdp fell from the post-WWII period quite consistently until '81-'89, over a presidential term period (recession years also an exception).

Back in the real world, the Reagan years saw the gross national debt virtually tripled (up nearly 200%, at up 198%), and his VP's term saw it about 50% up from there, and W saw the accumulated total public debt go up nearly another 100%. Obama IS on track to see it double again (about as much percentage increase as W, but of course, not starting with the world record surplus and no wars, and reasonable rates of taxation, as W started with). Clinton's figure by these more real world common sense measures is still up by that approx. 34%, but headed down by the over $450 billion he paid off the public national debt, and on a glide-path to entirely pay off the debt over the following 10 year period.

[LWW]

It's a shame you don't realize how uninformed you actually are.

Read the article.

It is self explanatory.

[Soflasnapper]

I have forgotten probably more than you will ever know on these matters. The chart is grossly in error on its y-axis, mislabeling what it purports to show, and therefore, false.

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have forgotten probably more than you will ever know on these matters. The chart is grossly in error on its y-axis, mislabeling what it purports to show, and therefore, false.

</div></div>

By your interpretation of the data ... that is obviously a fantasy.

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have forgotten probably more than you will ever know on these matters. The chart is grossly in error on its y-axis, mislabeling what it purports to show, and therefore, false.

</div></div>
Being the benevolent soul that I am, and knowing you would never read the provided data since it wasn't fed to you by the party spoon, let me explain it to you.

It is not measuring federal debt, and kudos for finally admitting that Clinton never reduced the total debt by even a dime.

It is measuring gubmint debt as a percentage of GDP.

Using the proper metric, under Reagain the debt as a percent of GDP grew by 14.9% ... call it 1.87% per year for 8 years.

This means that although gubmint debt rose much more than this, GDP also rose at a prodigious rate which largely offset the debt growth.

Under Bush the Elder, it rose 7.1% in 4 years ... call it 1.78% per year ... as the growth of debt was still pretty much in synch with GDP growth.

Under Clinton, and yes he had an (R) congress for 6 years and not 8 ... but those 6 are were the decline in debt to GBP happened, the ratio fell by 13.4% or about 1.68% per year even though the debt still went up.

Under Bush the Younger the debt to GDP rose by 5.6% ... call it 0.7% per year ... because even though there was a debt build up there was also GDP growth.

Now, under dear leader, debt to GDP has went up by 21.9% ... call it 10.45% per year ... because not only did the deficit explode, but it did so in conjunction with an economic implosion.

Put another way ... if you take Reagan's 1.87% and add Bush I's 1.78% and Bush II's 0.7% and compare:

- Dear leader grew the debt 558.8% as fast as it grew under Reagan ... and we rebuilt the US military, toppled the USSR and renewed the US economy out of the deal.

- Dear leader grew the debt 587.1% as fast as it grew under Bush I ... and we fought the Gulf War and helped many fledgling nations find freedom after the fall of the USSR as part of the deal.

- Dear leader grew the debt 1,428.6% as fast as it grew under Bush II ... and we toppled Saddam and the taliban as part of the deal.

Next ridiculous assertion please?

[Soflasnapper]

It is not measuring federal debt,... It is measuring gubmint debt as a percentage of GDP.

I know that, which is why I said the y-axis caption was totally false.

Hint: the y-axis says <u>% change in public debt</u>. Use your readers, or re-set your screen resolution to make the image bigger, perhaps.

It should read '% change in public debt to gdp ratio.'

Since it does not read that, it's quite clear I was entirely correct in my statement, and by your tedious explanation, already understood by me before you wrote it, you're actually agreeing with me, while not understanding that you are.

Which makes your following statement and the several like it, false:

Dear leader grew the debt 558.8% as fast as it grew under Reagan

You mean 'the <u>PUBLIC</u> debt to gdp ratio' (i.e., not counting the SS debt), not 'the debt.'

Note also that using the public debt instead of the gross national debt is a faulty metric, as it ignores what's been $200 billion a year or so in additional borrowing and spending for decades, and thereby waves off several trillions in debt.

[LWW]

You truly are a nit.

Guess who placed that wording there?

How about Pelosi's office.

[Soflasnapper]

And somehow, although you understood it all, you were forced by the wrong caption to claim what you did about Obama's DEBT INCREASE having this or that percentage relationship to others DEBT INCREASES (instead of the percentage relationship to the PUBLIC debt/gdp ratio?).

Pelosi MADE YOU MAKE YOUR ERROR?

I've heard it all, now.

[LWW]

You truly are hopeless.

Here is Pelosi's original:
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com:80/politifact%2Fphotos%2FPelosi_chart_smaller.jpg

Now ... defend the regime some more.