Obama's Legacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rolling7

New Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
1
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S.Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research

Commanders-In-Debt
Federal debt accumulated by presidency

Reagan (1981-89) $1.76 trillion

Bush, Sr. (1989-93) $1.49 trillion

Clinton (1993-2001) $1.54 trillion

Bush, Jr. (2001-09) $4.90 trillion

Obama (2009-present) $4.31 trillion

In three years time, Obama is within 85% of the highest and most enormous
debt accumulated by any president in history. When 2012 election comes around, he will have the top spot for sure. This will be his legacy. Should he be re-elected,
he will be on track to accumulate an estimated $8 trillion dollars debt.
 
As usual, jillo is wrong. I've read and agreed to rule 11a AND have posted my source. Therefore, I've fulfilled the requirement.
 
Actually rolling7 - I went to FRASER - Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research and found that there are countless articles. What was the name of the article pertaining to Commanders in Debt?

If I were writing a paper, I'd be obligated to quote my references - I wouldn't be referencing just to the name of the library but also the title of the book.

FRASER is a library. Title of article please?
 
The second President Bush is not a junior. Just so you know.

What is your point? Do you have one?
 
rolling7 said:
As usual, jillo is wrong. I've read and agreed to rule 11a AND have posted my source. Therefore, I've fulfilled the requirement.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your source was far too general. Which article did your information come from?
 
Might have been from an 'archived' newspaper article. I couldn't find where OP's source originated from.

Best as I can get: http://www.google.com/search?q="commanders+in+debt"

BTW, Rolling, did you account for inflation? I remember in the 80's the price of gas was $1.xx a gallon. And you could get a dozen of eggs for under a dollar.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Actually rolling7 - I went to FRASER - Federal Reserve Archival System for Economic Research and found that there are countless articles. What was the name of the article pertaining to Commanders in Debt?

If I were writing a paper, I'd be obligated to quote my references - I wouldn't be referencing just to the name of the library but also the title of the book.

FRASER is a library. Title of article please?
Click to expand...

I did the same and you would have to click on a lot links to find the right one!
I was told I had to have a link when posting someone else work.
 
jillio said:
He didn't account for anything.:lol:
Click to expand...

No he didn't.:lol: One of my pet peeves regarding links is that either people don't provide links or just provide links to the site and not the specific article itself.
 
Ah-ha, I haveth discovered thee, thine source hath revealeth.

I did the favor of getting the decimals to the hundredths also.
The newspaper rounded them, silly newspaper, the tenth can deceive people. BTW, as I figured, it isn't accounted for inflation. Just overall total debt. It is meaningless because $1.00 in Kennedy's era meant a lot of money. I read that you could buy the alleged sniper rifle he was shot with for $30 back in the day. These days you have to pay $5000 and up for even used rifles.


Excuse me while I take a victory lap!

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • RollingsArticle.jpg
    RollingsArticle.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 85
  • rollingNumbers.jpg
    rollingNumbers.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 84
naisho said:
Ah, I haveth discovered thee, thine source is revealeth.

I did the favor of getting the decimals to the hundredths also. The newspaper rounded them, silly newspaper, deceiving people.
Excuse me while I take a victory lap!
Click to expand...

:) which newspaper?
 
This one that I was found was yesterday in the Houston Chronicle, Nov 19th 2011, page 6 (A6).
 
naisho said:
Ah-ha, I haveth discovered thee, thine source hath revealeth.

I did the favor of getting the decimals to the hundredths also.
The newspaper rounded them, silly newspaper, the tenth can deceive people. BTW, as I figured, it isn't accounted for inflation. Just overall total debt. It is meaningless because $1.00 in Kennedy's era meant a lot of money. I read that you could buy the alleged sniper rifle he was shot with for $30 back in the day. These days you have to pay $5000 and up for even used rifles.


Excuse me while I take a victory lap!

attachment.php

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Thanks for the work. That is why we all wanted to be able to see the source.;)
 
whatdidyousay! said:
I did the same and you would have to click on a lot links to find the right one!
I was told I had to have a link when posting someone else work.
Click to expand...

Yep, and in this case, he didn't even get the information from where he claimed. He got it from a newspaper.:P
 
naisho said:
attachment.php
Click to expand...
One thing that stands out; Republicans are far more guilty of increasing the debt than Democrats. I always hear what a loser Carter was, but Reagan increased the debt 6-fold from Carter (I realize Reagan had 2 terms, but still). Granted that Obama has spent far more in his first term, but he inherited a much worse scenario than his predecessors. Not that I like what Obama has done. This chart, if intended to paint Liberals as the main source of the debt, has actually backfired a bit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top