Edited for flaming terminology.

soufie
Site Moderator

lol, nice nit picking

you found a couple of numbers that look positive,,,,,,

so, we switch it from gdp growth to 'per capita' growth? brilliant really,,,


but lets pick a different range , shall we?

in the two terms before regan,, real per capita gdp rose from 23,257.15 to 25,941.53 a net of 11 percent increase

under Reagan,, first five years, real per capita gdp rose from 25,941.53 to 28,544.83 , a net of 10 percent increase


in the two terms before Obama, real per capita gdp rose from 39,869.95 to 41,402.08, a net of three percent increase

under Obama, real per capita gdp rose from 41,402.08 to 43,411.28 (in October 2012) , a net of 5 percent (rounded from 4.8) increase

again, in CONTEXT both presidents did little more than keep up the growth trend(slightly higher actually) they CAME IN ON,,,,



http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year

of course not, in these debates,, we always pick whatever figures seem to support our opinion

figures don't lie,, but liars figure


I guess, if someone was making 100 thousand per year and then got boosed to 300 thousand per year

they would not be as psyched as someone who made 1 million and got boosted to a million 5 per year,,,,lol


after all, the former only got 200 grand more and the latter got 500 grand more,,,,


context doesn't matter AT ALL with numbers,,,,if they 'prove' your point, I guess,,,

my point? my point is your a bit confused on your math skills...

Obama haters have no real logic.

considering I Was head of my CALC class in college at the age of 16,,, and presuming my BASIC math skills haven't deteriorated ,,,


I doubt its much worse than anyones here

but by all means, Im open for the correction of my 'math',,,,which equations did I get incorrect?

your equations are fine, it's your understanding of percentages that are a bit off... your comparison to Reagan and barry was way out there

Reagan spends 2 trillion, and the national debt goes up 200%
obama spends 7 trillion, and the debt goes up 50%

which one of those seems better to you?

The Deficit is going down under this president.

yeah,right!

when it comes to money,,I think its always better when we multiply money than it is when we add dollars,, if we are trying to make money

and its better that we don't multiply dollars when we are losing money






in other words,, the difference between seeing a half a mill lose my account and two mill leave,, depends very strongly on what was there to begin with

if both accounts begin at the same point, its equally disturbing

howver, if the latter STARTED OUT With TEN TIMES As much as the former (10 mill compared to 1 mill) ID be more upset about the former accounts losses (1 million losing 5000k would be more upsetting than 10 million losing 500 k or even 2.5 million,,,,,in other words)


we started out with a million and dug ourselves in the whole three times as deep once

now we are only in the whole 50 percent more than where we started,,,

I don't see how there is much comparison in terms of how 'bad' things are or have been before,,,where those figures are concerned,,,

It is.

U.S. Deficit Shrinking At Fastest Pace Since WWII, Before Fiscal Cliff
By Jed Graham
Posted 11/20/2012 11:18 AM ET
Email Print License Comment

inShare


View Enlarged Image

Believe it or not, the federal deficit has fallen faster over the past three years than it has in any such stretch since demobilization from World War II.

In fact, outside of that post-WWII era, the only time the deficit has fallen faster was when the economy relapsed in 1937, turning the Great Depression into a decade-long affair.

If U.S. history offers any guide, we are already testing the speed limits of a fiscal consolidation that doesn't risk backfiring. That's why the best way to address the fiscal cliff likely is to postpone it.

While long-term deficit reduction is important and deficits remain very large by historical standards, the reality is that the government already has its foot on the brakes.

In this sense, the "fiscal cliff" metaphor is especially poor. The government doesn't need to apply the brakes with more force to avoid disaster. Rather the "cliff" is an artificial one that has sprung up because the two parties are able to agree on so little.



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/112012-634082-federal-deficit-falling-fastest-since-world-war-ii.htm#ixzz2g2Jl6nU8
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

You're right, but he's probably just confusing "debt" and "deficit." I see lots of Cons getting those confused.

no, your liberalness is getting in the way here...

if it didn't work for Reagan, as the national debt has went up some 1600% since his time in office, what makes you think barry's contribution of the 5-7 trillion he spent is going to work?

Facts from a blog?

if that is true, the only reason would be is the government is controlling the oil we import and export... if we are exporting more than importing, the deficit would go down...

thanks, I think deficit and debt are often confused too,,,,

the debt will ocntinue to grow every year we have a deficit,, because that means we spent more than we made(causing the need to borrow more)

the only time it goes down is when there is a SURPLUS instead of a deficit


and yes,, that deficit is going down under this president

FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion for more years click here.
FY 2010: $1,294 billion



http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

tangent much? its increased 8 times,,,from 2 trill when Reagan left

to 16 trill now

that's a period of 24 years though


if we had kept the rate of 200 percent every eight years,Reagans pace,,,our debt now would be,,

the first eight years....6 trill

the next eight years,,,,24 trill

the last eight years,,,72trill


,,, Im glad things actually SLOWED down their PACE,,,where the debt is concerned,,,

lol, keep thinking that, see what it does for ya...

the sad fact is, it should have never been in the trillions in the first place... what business would survive with that kind of dept?
barry is not helping by adding trillions upon trillions of dollars to it..

President Obama wisely spent the money to bail out the automobile industry and continuing the efforts to bail out the banks. There are no other $trillions spent by President Obama, and in fact, the Federal budget deficit is shrinking. Literally getting smaller as I type this.