OHV notec wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:National Debt versus GDP and Population

Just glancing through it, the color-coding is inconsistent for certain figures. Some of which make it look intentionally misleading?

The red text shows a worsening trend and green shows an improving trend. That seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. I'm curious exactly what you are talking about here - specifically. I found -

Quote:

12/31/1989 BUSH $2,952,994,000,000 246,819,230 $11,964 9.0% $16,257 74% $14,056 85%

should have been

Quote:

12/31/1989 BUSH $2,952,994,000,000 246,819,230 $11,964 9.0% $16,257 74% $14,056 85%

and

Quote:

12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436 285,081,556 $20,848 3.9% $26,827 78% $22,851 91%

should have been

Quote:

12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436 285,081,556 $20,848 3.9% $26,827 78% $22,851 91%

This IMO is more likely to be a couple isolated errors in color selection. Then there is this one.

Quote:

12/31/2007 BUSH $9,229,172,659,218 301,579,895 $30,603 5.3% $34,893 88% $26,804 114%

where they forgot to color a figure entirely and should look like

Quote:

12/31/2007 BUSH $9,229,172,659,218 301,579,895 $30,603 5.3% $34,893 88% $26,804 114%

One not in Bush senior's favor, one in Bush Jr's favor, and one neutral. So we've learned that these guys flunked coloring in Kindergarten. But misleading?! Do tell more.

My only issue with this is the lack of explanation for their YoY figure - so I'll do that where they failed. Year Over Year

Quote:

A method of evaluating two or more measured events to compare the results at one time period with those from another time period (or series of time periods), on an annualized basis.

The YoY from this chart shows red when things are GETTING WORSE at an increasing rate and green when things are GETTING WORSE at a slower rate. The only exception on this chart being 12/31/2000, where things had ACTUALLY IMPROVED 5.3%.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Typically, a thread is a starting point for discussion, via the poster making a 'point' that others can either agree with, or take exception with. What is your 'point'?

Are you by chance implying that there is nothing there you can take exception too(namely the facts) , or that you don't understand the point?

I'd take a obvious stab at the point - lets calls this an economic/financial grade card for the presidents listed(probably excluding Ford). The data for Obama wasn't all here - probably won't be for a while either - so this doesn't do much to evaluate him either way. In time, we will have a clearer, factual picture of his presidency as well.

Let me pull something else from the numbers - starting with the first year of each president and ending with the last year of the next president(going on the assumption that the first year had more to do with what the previous guy gave you and as that president's starting point).

I have one other thing to add but I'll make a separate post to make it easier on everyone.

From compiling these numbers, something clear and obvious emerges. Method 1 involves starting from the last dept figure of the last administration. Since it covers all but 20 days of their spending. Method 2 involved the time honored "blame the last guy" for only the first year - which I therefore include their successor's first year against them.

Method 1 - clear cut
Carter
$930,210,000,000 - $653,544,000,000
$276.666.000.000
Reagan
$2,684,392,000,000 - $930,210,000,000
$1,754,182,000,000
Bush Sr.
$4,177,009,000,000 - $2,684,392,000,000
$1,492,617,000,000
Clinton
$5,662,216,013,697 - $4,177,009,000,000
$1,485,207,013,697
Bush Jr.
$10,699,804,864,612 - $5,662,216,013,697
$5,037,588,850,915
Republican Total from this period(not including Ford obviously) - $8,284,387,850,915
62.744002110999902553943607958925% of the national debt.

Method 2 - its his fault
Carter
$1,028,729,000,000 - $718,943,000,000
$309,786,000,000
Reagan
$2,952,994,000,000 - $1,028,729,000,000
$1,924,265,000,000
Bush Sr.
$4,535,687,054,406 - $2,952,994,000,000
$1,582,693,054,406
Clinton
$5,943,438,563,436 - $4,535,687,054,406
$1,407,751,509,030
Bush Jr.
$12,311,349,677,512 - $5,943,438,563,436
$6,367,911,114,076
R total- $9,874,869,168,482
$9,874,869,168,482 / $13,203,473,753,968
74.789932956199011341981296626202% of debt

Personally I prefer method 1, but can see the argument of using method 2. Either way, I think the point is clear. Although I will concede that this method isn't perfect(is any method?) since it cannot factor in depressions/recessions/booms - and in particular the reasons for those fluctuations. Lots and lots of world events happened during these periods after all.

There is no source for what I just provided - I compiled it myself, although my source was these numbers. Feel free to check them yourself with any basic calculator.

bk3k wrote:Are you by chance implying that there is nothing there you can take exception too(namely the facts) , or that you don't understand the point?

No, that was a jab at Bill, because he posted a chart, but didn't make a point about it. I was using an exact quote he made as a first response to another thread a while back. It's just fun using the idiots' own words against them.

And then there's the information presented...care to take a shot at the content, instead of the messenger?

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:And then there's the information presented...care to take a shot at the content, instead of the messenger?

I thought I'd have some fun playing your part here. LMAO. After all, what you just accused me of doing is your exact MO in every other thread here.

Wiggle, squirm...and try to show that you are better than me...by imitating me.

It's just more illogical behavior, more rationalization, more self-doubt.

Then again, you could actually try to address the information. It's your favorite food...DATA. Is it such a sin for someone else to present DATA...or is DATA your exclusive province here?

I'll now resist the urge to continually rub your nose in your childishness...but only long enough for some serious debate to occur in this thread.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:Wiggle, squirm...and try to show that you are better than me...by imitating me.

LOL. Newsflash: I'm making fun of you by throwing your own sh!t back in your face, dumbass.

bk3k wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:National Debt versus GDP and Population

Just glancing through it, the color-coding is inconsistent for certain figures. Some of which make it look intentionally misleading?

The red text shows a worsening trend and green shows an improving trend. That seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. I'm curious exactly what you are talking about here - specifically. I found - ........

I didn't say there was A LOT, just "for certain figures". You missed a couple though:

Quote:

12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512 307,006,550 $40,101 14.1% $35,665 112% N/A
6/30/2010 OBAMA $13,203,473,753,968 309,823,457 $42,616 14.2% 21.2% 14.2% $35,920 119% N/A

should actually be:

Quote:

12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512 307,006,550 $40,101 14.1% $35,665 112% N/A
6/30/2010 OBAMA $13,203,473,753,968 309,823,457 $42,616 14.2% 21.2% 14.2% $35,920 119% N/A

Like I said, I just glanced at it; and I followed "misleading" with a "?". I wasn't trying to imply it was, honestly wondering, as I have no idea who actually did the coloring.


Quik, I'd really like to hear what you have to say about what's been presented. 'Playing the part of Bill' is just taking a step backwards...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster