Obama approval falls to lowest level
- Thread starter MonsterMark
- Start date
Foss - I can give you Reagan's debt easily - in today's dollars - 2.89 Trillion dollars (actual - 1.604 trillion then if you go to this site - they have an 'inflation' calculator...
I was bringing up the point with military spending that it also helped turn around the economy - it gave rise to a large military machine that was pumping money into the economy. No different than Clinton's road projects. The military spending helped the economy. It always does, for any president.
Oh, Reagan started out at $997,855,000,000.00 in 1981 and it went to $2,602,337,712,041.16 in 1988 - over 2.5 times... a larger multiplier than Obama's projected 2 times
I was bringing up the point with military spending that it also helped turn around the economy - it gave rise to a large military machine that was pumping money into the economy. No different than Clinton's road projects. The military spending helped the economy. It always does, for any president.
Oh, Reagan started out at $997,855,000,000.00 in 1981 and it went to $2,602,337,712,041.16 in 1988 - over 2.5 times... a larger multiplier than Obama's projected 2 times
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ok, so his TOTAL debt in EIGHT YEARS was 2.5 times. Obama's nearly caught him after SIX MONTHS in office - oh, and the economy's getting WORSE. Good luck with that.
Ah, Foss - if you look at your chart - it shows that at the end of 2019 the debt will have doubled from 2008 - actually 11 years - not the EIGHT YEARS that you so effectively put in all caps...
So, Obama will be responsible for all debt from 2008 - 2019, even though he can only hold office from 2009 - 2017... Unlike Reagan who was only responsible for EIGHT YEARS
Oh, foss – the US debt as of 8/08 was 10.025 Trillion dollars - your chart looks a bit off... but whatever...
So, Obama will raise the debt (magically because for 2018 and 2019 he won't be in office) to 12.5 trillion - so he will add 2.5 Trillion to the debt... But, if you look at the chart - in 2017 it looks to be about 11.8 Trillion - so down to about 1.8 trillion added to the debt he was handed...
Over 30% less than Reagan did in comparable dollars... In fact only .2 Trillion more in actual dollars...
So, Obama will raise the debt (magically because for 2018 and 2019 he won't be in office) to 12.5 trillion - so he will add 2.5 Trillion to the debt... But, if you look at the chart - in 2017 it looks to be about 11.8 Trillion - so down to about 1.8 trillion added to the debt he was handed...
Over 30% less than Reagan did in comparable dollars... In fact only .2 Trillion more in actual dollars...
Last edited by a moderator:
You can start at this link, though it cannot give you any crosstabs, charts, etc. It gives you an indication of the general views of Americans and support for his policies.
You can see the trending in his approval rating here.
The majority of people:
- view tax increases as hurting the economy and tax cuts as helping the economy.
- don't trust Obama on the Economic Crisis
- view increases in government spending as hurting the economy
- Don't view health care as a "very important" issue
- Don't trust either party in the areas of; Healthcare, Education, Social Security, Abortion Taxes, economy, Iraq War, Government ethics/corruption or Immigration
- Do trust the GOP on National Security in general
There are other facts as well; that is simply a sample. In some areas they do seem to support some aspects of Obama's agenda, but mostly they are opposed to it.
There is also this NYT article which changed it's title from the original, "In Poll, Obama seen as ineffective on the economy" to what it currently is, "Obama poll sees doubt on budget and health care". The first paragraph reads:
A substantial majority of Americans say President Obama has not developed a strategy to deal with the budget deficit, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, which also found that support for his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, falls well below his job approval ratings.
And, as has already been shown in another thread, that NYT/CBS poll is highly skewed toward Democrats.fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
My chart comes from the OMB. Take it up with them.
Where is your boy getting the extra scratch for all this spending? Oh yeah, that's right, he's printing it.
Just so everyone knows, foxpaws has a history of distorting Reagan's record on this forum. Fossten has already shown her here to be comparing apples to oranges in comparing the total debt of Reagan's two terms to the total debt after Obama's first six months, which dishonestly makes Reagan's numbers look closer to Obama's then they actually were.
She is bringing up the "military spending helping the economy" point that has already been countered in this forum before and shown to be a specious point, and she knows it.
This is a rather blatant attempt to mischaracterize Fossten's point and the point the chart is making.
These habits are why it is a waste of time to discuss anything political with her; she mischaracterizes, ignores key points and generally doesn't converse in good faith. There is no chance of an honest discussion when someone is acting like that.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
How so, when she's providing links for the numbers? Seems if you have a problem, it's with her source, not her. Care to discredit the source with a source of your own?
Go back and read what I said. The sources can be fine and she can simply be citing numbers that, while true, are not comparable. Like when citing the debt after Reagan's two terms to the debt after Obama's first 5 months. The problem isn't necessarily with the numbers but with her argument in comparing the numbers.
There can also be an issue of the lack of clearly spelled out methodology in the calculating of the numbers she cites. For instance, some of her sources cite numbers from multiple years, but don't give any indication as to the way those numbers are calculated. Are the numbers all adjusted for inflation or not? If you don't know then you don't know if they are comparable.
For whatever reason (ignorance or dishonesty) the majority of times she cites Reagan's numbers in comparison to another President, it is in a way that distorts Reagan's numbers and/or the numbers of the other President and serves to obfuscate the truth. She is either in over her head or is intentionally distorting and obfuscating.
Well, if foss would post actual numbers regarding Obama's debt maybe we would have something to talk about ... all I get is innuendo...
And military spending doesn't help the economy? I don't care who does it, from Roosevelt to Reagan it does help the economy. In fact I believe you claimed that it was military spending that finally got us out of the depression.
I am not saying it is a bad thing, it is just another thing that you need to take into account when looking at Reagan's record regarding the economy.
So. shag - do you believe that chart is correct - that we have 6 trillion dollars of debt when Obama took office?
Because I point out that Foss has yet to post numbers regarding the nations debt over the last 5 months...
You know what numbers that the Heritage Foundation uses - they use only debt held by the public - they do not include the debt held by inter governmental agencies - something that everyone includes... go to any site that deals with the debt and they combine the numbers...
So, why do they use numbers that almost no one uses...
Public debt end of January 2009 - $6.317 trillion
Public debt end of May 2009 - $7.019 trillion
Another tactic you have used; attacking and smearing the source. You have attempted to smear Heritage before, using mostly conjecture and assumption to do so.
Again, I am tired of wasting my time. Especially when it comes numbers heavy discussions, it can get really dry. So having to rehash numbers and get into issues of methodology and weather or not comparisons are appropriate or not is exceedingly monotonous, and it really doesn't convince anyone of anything as numbers are easy to distort, even unintentionally. Combine that with the fact that you have already started distorting numbers here in this thread and it gets to be doubly a waste of time. I am tired of banging my head against a brick wall with you.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Fox, you're such an ignorant, lying propagandist. The numbers I posted were from the OMB. You've failed to move me off my point, which is that Obama has raised our debt higher than Reagan did in eight years, no matter how you try to spin it. Deal with it.
We all know the Alinsky tactics you use. You're trying to silence dissenting facts because you know they're damning and you know Obama is failing. Your only tactic is to distort the truth by stretching a comparison between 8 years of Reagan, sprinkling in some inflation, and hoping nobody notices. You're full of FAIL today.
Foss, Heritage's numbers are from OMB - their chart interprets those numbers by using only a portion of the debt... Your 'numbers' are incomplete because you chose to use just the Heritage information without going to the actual source.
And this time you got to align me with Alinsky...
Nice....
Shag - you attack source all the time, but those who lean left aren't allowed too? Once again Heritage has chosen to use a truncated version of the numbers available, similar to the previous chart that was posted here regarding the employment numbers during the depression, which excluded agricultural workers. In this case - with the Obama's debt chart they also extend the numbers to 2019, 2 years beyond what could be the longest possible amount of time Obama could be in office, and they go back to the beginning of 2008, 1 year before Obama was sworn in. They have 11 bars colored as 'Obama years'. If I would do that for Reagan - wow - his debt numbers would really go up if I could add the last Carter year and the first 2 years of GHBush...
It isn't comparing apples to apples, or even oranges - it is comparing apples to orangutans.
There are good reasons that most people use the larger numbers when dealing with the debt - it gives a better picture of where we really stand, and also where our 'interest' money is going.
Oh, using Heritage's truncated numbers...
Obama's debt - projected - in 6 months - .8 trillion 2009 dollars
Reagan's debt - 8 years - 2.89 trillion 2009 dollars (even in 1988 dollars Reagan's debt was 1.6 trillion)
The numbers don't add up Foss...
Once again - from Heritage's Chart...
projected increase in debt for Obama over 11 years - 2 times
Reagan's debt increase over 8 years - 2.5 times
And this time you got to align me with Alinsky...
Nice.... Shag - you attack source all the time, but those who lean left aren't allowed too? Once again Heritage has chosen to use a truncated version of the numbers available, similar to the previous chart that was posted here regarding the employment numbers during the depression, which excluded agricultural workers. In this case - with the Obama's debt chart they also extend the numbers to 2019, 2 years beyond what could be the longest possible amount of time Obama could be in office, and they go back to the beginning of 2008, 1 year before Obama was sworn in. They have 11 bars colored as 'Obama years'. If I would do that for Reagan - wow - his debt numbers would really go up if I could add the last Carter year and the first 2 years of GHBush...
It isn't comparing apples to apples, or even oranges - it is comparing apples to orangutans.
There are good reasons that most people use the larger numbers when dealing with the debt - it gives a better picture of where we really stand, and also where our 'interest' money is going.
Oh, using Heritage's truncated numbers...
Obama's debt - projected - in 6 months - .8 trillion 2009 dollars
Reagan's debt - 8 years - 2.89 trillion 2009 dollars (even in 1988 dollars Reagan's debt was 1.6 trillion)
The numbers don't add up Foss...
Once again - from Heritage's Chart...
projected increase in debt for Obama over 11 years - 2 times
Reagan's debt increase over 8 years - 2.5 times
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
One word is all you need to pay attention to.
And you know that one word has been spun to put the most positive light on that number.
That one word is all you need to know in this argument.
Bryan - those are Heritage's 'projected' numbers (disseminated from OMB) - I don't think they are going to be putting the most 'positive' light on any of Obama's numbers...
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
All projected numbers are always inflated. I look at 3-4 business plans a month and the only ones we will even consider are ones that don't have inflated 'projected' figures. So I would even question Heritage's numbers.Bryan - those are Heritage's 'projected' numbers (disseminated from OMB) - I don't think they are going to be putting the most 'positive' light on any of Obama's numbers...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I would be interested in you attempting to put a positive light on them, instead of trying to smear Reagan, an obvious red herring.Bryan - those are Heritage's 'projected' numbers (disseminated from OMB) - I don't think they are going to be putting the most 'positive' light on any of Obama's numbers...
I was using Regan's numbers as historical perspective - not a red herring...
The right cries "The sky is falling" with Obama's projected debt numbers - but, gloss over Reagan's. Heck should we also look at GWBush, that will certainly shed some additional light on how the debt has increased over the last 30 years.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Really? I didn't know that Bush served 8 terms.