Obama v Reagan

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

Well, as long as we're being pedantic about it, 1981 - 1988 can be 8 years, just as Jan - Dec can be 12 months. It lacks clarity if you mean Jan 1 - Dec 31st, or the same date at the beginning or end (or Sept 30th, end of fiscal year).

It's a perfect discussion for calling each other liars, but seems a bit silly in light of current deficits.

I reject Andy's notion that 1981 is the most intellectually honest approach. I think debt as a percentage of GDP (perhaps 3 year rolling average) is more sensible than trying to do real dollar conversions.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

Well, as long as we're being pedantic about it, 1981 - 1988 can be 8 years, just as Jan - Dec can be 12 months. It lacks clarity if you mean Jan 1 - Dec 31st, or the same date at the beginning or end (or Sept 30th, end of fiscal year).


It's a perfect discussion for calling each other liars, but seems a bit silly in light of current deficits.

I reject Andy's notion that 1981 is the most intellectually honest approach. I think debt as a percentage of GDP (perhaps 3 year rolling average) is more sensible than trying to do real dollar conversions.

And I reject yours.

You are then substituting your conclusion about what is the proper parameter for the raw data. Once you start doing that you open a can of worms. The value on inauguration days 1981 and 1989 should be used, since they indisputably span the presidency.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

(OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

Speaking of deliberate dishonesty, I don't recall you or Lucky posting inflation corrected numbers - so, *who* is having the statistics problem?

And mentioning deliberate dishonesty again, I note that you clipped your quote directly above where I provided the corrected numbers with the correct dates.

I admitted the mistake and corrected it.

We all see how you and lucky differ from that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The value on inauguration days 1981 and 1989 should be used, since they indisputably span the presidency.

Those would be the numbers that YOU don't use yourself, correct?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

The value on inauguration days 1981 and 1989 should be used, since they indisputably span the presidency.

Those would be the numbers that YOU don't use yourself, correct?

You use them and I'll not dispute them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In 1981 dollars (FY debt from treasurydirect, inflation info from bls):

FY 1981: 997,855,000,000
FY 1988: 2,003,800,038,272
Increase: 1,005,945,038,272

NOT a tripling of the debt - barely a doubling. (100.61% increase)

It's really sad that you cannot help yourself from gross dishonesty. You say FY 1981, but that is 8 months into the fascist pig's term. This gives the term, "rounding down" a whole new meaning. To be fair I took the miidle of FY 1980 to FT 1981, same with FY 1988 to FY 1989 as reference numbers. In fact, post #43 of this thread illustrates this completely.

09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

Reagan inherited - 952 B

Reagan left - 2.7T

So actually it was closer to 1.8T

-- in fact 2.7 is generous to the fascist pig, the debt increased > 250B in the FY and attributed only 100B to him. See, I'm generous and you're deceptive.

Now, see if you can use your voodoo mathematics to figure a 100.61% increase or your revised "Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%)" 120% increase. Mike, it's a 184% increase, or a gross 284%, nearly tripling the debt.

Follow along: 2.7 divided by .952 = 2.836, or a 284% outcome, meaning he nearly tripled the debt.

Now, let's look at the stable debt he took and the monster he left. The debt was increasing modestly as he inherited it, the curve just went steep and it took 12 years to turn flat again. What did the 2 presidents do after FR? They increased taxes. Then the following turd lowered them and look what happened; the debt went vertical again.

Mike, welcome to mathematical reality, FR left the debt 284% higher than when he inherited it. Had you finished more than 2 semesters at U of T you may have been introduced to MAT 096 and been able to grasp this.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's really sad that you cannot help yourself from gross dishonesty. You say FY 1981, but that is 8 months into the fascist pig's term.

Go back and take a HS government class, Lucky, and you'll find out that the budget runs from 1 Oct. From 10/1/80 to 9/30/81 is on Carter's tab.

Quote

treasurydirect NON-INFLATION-ADJUSTED numbers snipped

Reagan inherited - 952 B

Reagan left - 2.7T

So actually it was closer to 1.8T

Since we're discussing 'gross dishonesty', Lucky....aren't those the numbers you CLAIMED were "1980's dollars" when they aren't adjusted for inflation AT ALL?

Quote

Mike, welcome to mathematical reality, FR left the debt 284% higher than when he inherited it.

Lucky, welcome to reality, period - when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, Reagan only increased the debt 120.5%.

Quote

Had you finished more than 2 semesters at U of T you may have been introduced to MAT 096 and been able to grasp this.

And had you been worth a shit at DeVrie, you'd be a lawyer now and could afford insurance.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It's really sad that you cannot help yourself from gross dishonesty. You say FY 1981, but that is 8 months into the fascist pig's term.

Quote

Go back and take a HS government class, Lucky, and you'll find out that the budget runs from 1 Oct. From 10/1/80 to 9/30/81 is on Carter's tab.

OMG, I stand corrected. OK, so we use your numbers and your methodology: FY 1981 to FY 1989:

09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32

Difference is: 1.86T

And what I wrote was: So actually it was closer to 1.8T

So really, I was being generous again, as I had it just below 1.8T and now, using your numbers, it's a solid 1.86T. Even with all your deciet you continue to hurt yourself. It's just sad to watch.

Quote

treasurydirect NON-INFLATION-ADJUSTED numbers snipped

Reagan inherited - 952 B

Reagan left - 2.7T

So actually it was closer to 1.8T

Quote

Since we're discussing 'gross dishonesty', Lucky....aren't those the numbers you CLAIMED were "1980's dollars" when they aren't adjusted for inflation AT ALL?

Right, that makes it worse by today's standard. By adjusting your fascist heroes damage to today's money it's twice the 1.86T, or 3.72T. Explain how I was being dishonest? I used gross, raw numbers and expressed them that way.

Quote

Mike, welcome to mathematical reality, FR left the debt 284% higher than when he inherited it.

Quote

Lucky, welcome to reality, period - when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, Reagan only increased the debt 120.5%.

No, your 120% numbers was arrived at by this in your words:

9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000
9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344
Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%)

You're using budgetted numbers and I'm using reality as in real gross debt. Various expenditures are incurred that aren't in the budget, yet fall under the timeline of the administration; you want to ignore those for R's and count those for D's. That's like saying I put aside 5k to restore my old car, but the actual cots was more like 12k, but I'm in denial of reality and will say I only spent 5k. Loud and clear, Mikepoo; we've had years of this logic.

So for clarity let me post your budgetary numbers in italics and actual debt numbers in bold so all can see how dishonest you're being:

9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00

9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344

09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32

So why the debt difference of $657B? Interest on the debt? Maybe. Probably shortfalls on tax receipts, as that seems to happen when taxes are cut so drastically. Yea, you can argue budgets all you want and ignire receipts, but that is why you are such a dishonest person when it comes to these arguments and we all see it.

Quote

Had you finished more than 2 semesters at U of T you may have been introduced to MAT 096 and been able to grasp this.

Quote

And had you been worth a shit at DeVrie, you'd be a lawyer now and could afford insurance.

Naw, I have a real degree, not a vo tech such as you. If I were on disability as you are, I would also have insurance.

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's really sad that you cannot help yourself from gross dishonesty. You say FY 1981, but that is 8 months into the fascist pig's term.

Quote

Go back and take a HS government class, Lucky, and you'll find out that the budget runs from 1 Oct. From 10/1/80 to 9/30/81 is on Carter's tab.

OMG, I stand corrected. OK, so we use your numbers and your methodology: FY 1981 to FY 1989:

09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32

Difference is: 1.86T

And what I wrote was: So actually it was closer to 1.8T

So really, I was being generous again, as I had it just below 1.8T and now, using your numbers, it's a solid 1.86T. Even with all your deciet you continue to hurt yourself. It's just sad to watch.

Unadjusted numbers yet AGAIN, Lucky? Tsk, tsk.

Just sad to watch.

Quote

Since we're discussing 'gross dishonesty', Lucky....aren't those the numbers you CLAIMED were "1980's dollars" when they aren't adjusted for inflation AT ALL?

Right, that makes it worse by today's standard.

So, where's it show that they're 1980's dollars on the webpage again, Lucky?

Quote

By adjusting your fascist heroes damage to today's money it's twice the 1.86T, or 3.72T. Explain how I was being dishonest? I used gross, raw numbers and expressed them that way.

Actually, if you use 2010 dollars the numbers are:
1981: 2,580,996,840,000
1989: 5,029,078,489,930
Increase: 2,448,081,649,929.68 (94.85%)

Even worse for you.

Quote

Mike, welcome to mathematical reality, FR left the debt 284% higher than when he inherited it.

Quote

Lucky, welcome to reality, period - when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, Reagan only increased the debt 120.5%.

No, your 120% numbers was arrived at by this in your words:

9/30/1981 (start of Reagan budgets): 997,855,000,000
9/30/1989 (end of Reagan budgets): 2,200,221,839,344
Increase: 1,202,366,839,344 (120.5%)

You're using budgetted numbers and I'm using reality as in real gross debt.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

It's a perfect discussion for calling each other liars, but seems a bit silly in light of current deficits.

And I reject yours. .

Kelpy is correct. This is silly

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.........Looks like 8 years to me.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Of course if you ad 7 to 81 you get 88 but that's not the same thing. Self confessed ignorance?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Looks like 8 years to me.

Presidential terms do not run Jan 1 to Dec 31, so it is not 8 years. I think that was the point.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Looks like 8 years to me.

Presidential terms do not run Jan 1 to Dec 31, so it is not 8 years. I think that was the point.

You are right. It would only be 8 years minus 20 days. Or in other words 7 years according to Kallend.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.........Looks like 8 years to me.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Of course if you ad 7 to 81 you get 88 but that's not the same thing. Self confessed ignorance?

Math is not your strong point, is it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.........Looks like 8 years to me.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Of course if you ad 7 to 81 you get 88 but that's not the same thing. Self confessed ignorance?

Math is not your strong point, is it?

Obviously math is not your strong point. Unless your are trying to justify that 8 years minus 20 days becomes 7 years.

But that aside, (Jan 1st) 81 to (Dec 31st)88 is 8 years. In other words

Quote

1981 to 1988 is only 7 years.

is incorrect.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.........Looks like 8 years to me.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

So according to timmy math the distance from milepost 81 to milepost 82 on the highway is 2 miles.

81, 82
(1) (2)

In fact, milepost 81 is 1 mile from itself:

81
(1)


No wonder Reagan and Bush ran up huge deficits.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Kelpy is correct. This is silly

worse, it's getting boring. Like watching two lawyers debate the shape of the table used for mediation.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a perfect discussion for calling each other liars, but seems a bit silly in light of current deficits.

And I reject yours. .

Kelpy is correct. This is silly

Waiting for weather at Summerfest. I suppose I could get on a creeper but this is more fun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Waiting for weather at Summerfest. I suppose I could get on a creeper but this is more fun.

damn Global Warming conspiracy - nothing but fog here this month.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Kelpy is correct. This is silly

worse, it's getting boring. Like watching two lawyers debate the shape of the table used for mediation.

The Paris Peace (re: Vietnam) talks got bogged down at the beginning with a dispute over the shape of the table.

[kallend 2,148]

Well, timmy, I see you continue to stalk me with your new sig line.

I have a son who was born in 1972. According to your math, he was 1 on the day he was born, and 2 in 1973.

I'm surprised you advertise your (lack of) math skills in your sig.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

... sig line...

I have "Sig lines OFF" on my view settings. I don't think I've seen anyone's sig line for years now.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Presidential terms are 4 years. Reagan had 2 terms, making 8 years. 1981 to 1988 is only 7 years. Your self confessed ignorance of statistics struck again. (OR maybe deliberate dishonesty, who knows).

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88.........Looks like 8 years to me.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

So according to timmy math the distance from milepost 81 to milepost 82 on the highway is 2 miles.

81, 82
(1) (2)

In fact, milepost 81 is 1 mile from itself:

81
(1)


No wonder Reagan and Bush ran up huge deficits.

They don't start highways at milepost 1, they start at zero miles. So if you got to milepost 2 then you have driven 2 miles.

Sorry you are having a problem with this. Simple things are hard for some people to understand. Nice try at redirect by talking about milepost because that is in no way the same.

I'll help by getting us back on track.

Quote

1981 to 1988 is only 7 years.

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88=8 years
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

If you still don't understand, PM me and I'll try to explain it to you in simpler terms.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

No wonder Reagan and Bush ran up huge deficits.

Yea, the brain surgeons who elect them can't even decipher that Oct 81 to Oct 88 = 7 years. They also think low taxes = great economic times. Fuzzy math works wonders

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well, timmy, I see you continue to stalk me with your new sig line.

I have a son who was born in 1972. According to your math, he was 1 on the day he was born, and 2 in 1973.

I'm surprised you advertise your (lack of) math skills in your sig.

So if it's monday, it won't be monday again for 8 days.

Mon (1) - Tues (2) - Wed (3) - Thurs (4) - Fri (5) - Sat (6) - Sun (7) - Mon (8). Wow, an 8 day week; must be a corporate thing to get more productivity; those pesky Republicans and their fuzzy math.