THEY ARE LYING

As the country nears the dreaded, though fictional fiscal cliff some blabber is turning toward Medicare cuts. Let me tell you here and now, no matter what you hear, no matter what they may be saying, they are lying.

No, nobody's “stretching the truth”. Nobody is putting any “spin” on it. THEY ARE LYING. Get that? All it takes is some very simple research to get the truth. No part of the fiscal cliff involves Medicare. Here's the undeniable, indisputable truth.

Directly from the government's own website. “Medicare is paid for through two trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.” And where do those funds come from? Again, from your government's own website. “Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed. Other sources, such as income taxes paid on Social

Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Part A premiums from people who

aren’t eligible for premium-free Part A.”

Know what you're contribution to medicare is? It's 1.45% of your income. It's part of your payroll tax (the other part is 4.2% for social security). Your employer pays a matching amount. Everybody with a job pays it...at least as far as I can determine. There's probably some exceptions involving civil servants (there always is) and some other deals arranged by special interest groups that we never were told about. But, in general, every week the government collects 2.9 cents for every dollar paid to every person who has a job...regardless of their wages. If you work for minimum wage at McDonald's, part time, you will pay 1.45 cents out of every dollar you earn. Mickie Dee will pay an additional 1.45 cents. So even if you work 10 hours a week at $7.50/hour you will pay $1.08 in federal taxes specifically to fund Medicare. And the people writing the check will match that. That also holds true if you're an investment banker earning the magical $250,000 a year. That 1.45% comes out to $3,625 plus the matching contribution from the firm they work for. And, by the way, those leeches on disability? They pay that 1.45% federal medicare tax, too. And the federal social security tax. I mention that only in passing and to point out that anyone repeating the blatant lie that “47% of the population don't pay any federal taxes” is an ignorant fool. And you're being played big time.

So when it comes to cutting government spending what's the point in focusing on Medicare? It's a separate fund. The government says so. Last year, Medicare spent $549,000,000,000 to help 48,700,000 Americans. We've spent over $800,000,000,000 on the war in Iraq with no funding for it. It was all borrowed money. The problems facing Medicare are mostly fabricated. Because of high unemployment the fund isn't collecting as much as it should. The current lie is based on the assumption that employment won't increase substantially in the near future and wages won't go up. If I have to explain how that works to you, maybe you should join the Tea Party.

The simple (non-political) solution is to “temporarily” raise the Medicare tax. Think your paycheck can take the hit? The kid working the drive-thru probably won't miss another buck o eight from their check. But think of all the damage it might do if Billy Gotbucks has to pay another $3,625. That might effect his annual tax deductible contribution to the GOP. Is there an alternative? Of course. Instead of doubling the tax how about a 50% increase? And why not tax all income at the same rate? You know, investment income. Hell, if we just taxed investment income at the current 1.45% rate there would be no need to raise anybody else's rate.

Take Mitt Romney for example. In the last two tax returns he allowed the public to see he earned over $42,600,000, most of it in capital gains. Most of it was not subjected to the 1.45% medicare tax (if any). Overall he paid about 14% in taxes. Including his Medicare taxes and Social Security taxes in to that may bump it up to 15%...less then you probably paid. Try as I might, I'm not seeing how paying the full 1.45% on all his income would alter his life style. So how about that? Instead of raising the tax rate how about everybody paying the same rate on all their income? The kid at the fast food joint and the multimillionaire all pay the same rate. The same penny and almost-a-half on every dollar earned. And millions of fellow citizens get medical care. I don't see a downside. But your Congressman does.

We're headed for a fiscal cliff and the only way to avoid it is to cut medical care for those that need it most. I can't imagine the stupidity involved in making that assessment. How Medicare is even involved in the issue defies rational explanation. But then again, we're talking about Congress. There's no component of the National Debt involving Medicare except for the part where the government borrowed the excess funds and has to pay it back. It's clear that anybody even mentioning Medicare as part of the solution is nothing more then a liar.

NAIL IN THE COFFIN #104

As with a lot of the “minor” reasons the Republican Party is about to plunge over a cliff of their own, the current ripple of secessionists petitioning the White House is one of the most telling. Leading the pack, to no one's surprise, is the great state (soon to be an independent nation?) of Texas. As I write this, a petition to the government to “Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government” leads the pack with some 111,000 signatures. That's almost twice the number of the third most popular petition, legalizing marijuana (58,000). What's that tell you?

Also in the mix are Louisiana (28,446), Florida (21,270), Georgia (20,026), Alabama (19,862), and a bunch more, including New York with 11,217 signatures. When a petition hits 25,000 signatures within 30 days it is supposed to generate a response from the White House.

The governor of Texas ( and former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination), Rick Perry, has (through a spokesperson) come out and said he no has interest in succeeding despite what he may have indicated in the past. Ah, good old Conservative Republicans. They never actually “say that” and yet, thousands of people “heard” that. No wonder they have such a hard time communicating their message.

Just before election day I thought I heard Rush Limbaugh suggest that on the day after the election, if Obama won, that perhaps the country should divide itself between red and blue states and see how each half does. Of course, he didn't suggest that himself, he was just sharing an e-mail he had gotten from “a friend”. Hell, he didn't actually mean it.

The whole secession concept is absurd. It's stupid. And everyone knows it. Probably most of the signers of such petitions understand that, too. But they want to send a message. And just what is their message? They think they're telling the country “We don't like the direction our nation is headed and we want our country back!”. What they're actually saying is “We have no idea what America is all about and refuse to accept the will of the people expressed through the process our country was founded on. So there!”.

The threat of secession isn't new. It was called the “Civil War”. Of course various groups roll out the whole secession thing in a more subtle manner now. Remember Sarah Palin? Her husband, Skeeter (or something like that), was part of a group aspiring independence for Alaska. Now Conservatives are petitioning the White House (one of the freedoms I believe they'll put in their own Constitutions) to “Peacefully grant the State of (put your state here) to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government”. SPOILER ALERT! It's not going to happen.

Right now, the topic is a joke. It hardly rated comment from John Stewart. Sean Hannity tried to jump start it, Rush Limbaugh won't touch it, and the general consensus is “let 'em”. And that's too bad. It's not Liberal Democrats petitioning the White House for independence. They have better things to do...like getting marijuana legal. And a better chance. No, while I'm sure all six members of the Libertarian Party are involved, it's pretty obvious this whole thing has been set in motion by Conservative Republicans. You know, the guys that lost the last election (again)? The guys claiming they love America, they love the Constitution and all that, but don't want to recognize the will of the people. The country's headed in the wrong direction and now they want to jump off the train. Patriots.

The Republican Party should be glad the main stream media is letting this one die and just treating it as a novelty item. The message they think they're sending has been coming out of Fox News for years. What the growing majority is hearing is a bunch of spoiled whiners who don't want to play by the rules. The real message here is how the Republican Party is slowly working it's way to irrelevancy. If the whole secession idea had (or maybe it still can) caught on any real Republican would have to distance themselves from it. And that would piss off the base. That “base”, anyway. And there's always a whacky third party advocating that particular issue. And they can't afford to lose even that little voting block.

But most importantly, whether this concept gains any real traction or not, it would seem Republicans tend to forget this is the “United States”. We all work together. What exactly would the country of Florida do if a couple of hurricanes hit? Heck, what would the country of New New York do after hurricane Sandy? Seems like we're all in this together. And that's the whole idea.

Remember Republicans, in 2016 how many people do you think are going to want to vote for the guy that advocating separating their state from the rest of the country? Somebody's going to bring it up. I know I will. This alone won't sink you (though I don't know why) but it is another of the hundreds of nails you've put in to your coffin.

I COULD ALMOST VOTE FOR ROMNEY

Sometimes I'm not as smart as I like to think. Sometimes major events happen around me and I fail to notice. Take for instance the unemployment numbers. I generally hear them, shrug, and laugh out loud at anyone's interpretation containing the word or words “improving”, “up tick”, “positive” or whatever happy adjective one could apply to 380,000 people losing their jobs. And if it wasn't for Mitt, I never even thought for a minute that 342,000 of those 380,000 were women!

How did that major story escape the attention of the national press? According to the numbers Mitt provided, week in, week out something like 9 out of every 10 people filing for unemployment were/are women! That's a national disgrace!

Not even Fox News paid any attention until Mitt pointed that out. Personally, I'm stunned. Seriously, I find that revelation hard to swallow but since not a single person has come forward to disagree and, in fact, Mitt has the full weight of Fox behind him.

Not that I would doubt Mitt or Fox I decided to just check it out. After all, that's such a major, major, major story it deserves more then a casual mention.

I started at the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since this happened exclusively during the Obama administration I found that 8,924,000 people were unemployed at the end of 2008. At the end of 2011 13,747,000 people were out of work. Over that three year period 4,823,000 jobs were lost. Bad in general, but much, much worse for women! Of those 4,823,000 jobs lost, 4,437,160 were lost by women! Good news for the guys, though. Only 385,840 men lost theirs. That comes out to scant 2,473 jobs lost by men on a weekly basis. Women on the other hand were losing 28,443 jobs a week and nobody noticed! At least nobody mentioned it until Mitt did! What a guy!

Not being a drone from Fox News or a desperate idiot Conservative or Teabagger I figured why not check the unemployment numbers for both men and women during those years. At the end of 2008, 2,782,000 women were unemployed. For men, the number was 3,727,000. At the end of 2011, 4,440,000 women were unemployed and 6,476,000 men. Huh? For one thing the numbers don't add up. From the end of 2008 to the end of 2011, 1,662,000 women lost their jobs as opposed to the 2,749,000 men that did. That's 37.7% of the lost jobs belonging to women and 62.3% were men.

Here's a direct quote from Mitt: "Do you know how many women - what percent of the job losses were women? 92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years has been women who've lost those jobs. The real war on women has been the job losses as a result of the Obama economy," he said.”

It sounds fantastic and fishy and indeed, it turns out to be a bald faced LIE! But I admit, I am a bit confused. It was pretty obvious he was lying. That “92.3%” number sounds outrageous and indeed, it is. As Republicans/Conservatives/Teabaggers know, the bigger the lie the more likely simple minds will believe it.

Now I'm sure the strategy here is to throw that outlandish number out there, have a back-up lie to cover your ass, and then let your mindless accomplices run with it (see Fox News). In the event anybody actually would call him on that none sense I'm sure Mitt's handlers have their “spin” to put on it to make it look like poor Mitt is being hammered for something he didn't actually say/mean. And the suckers will buy it.

Meanwhile the Obama administration is in the awkward position of attacking the liar with a response that will have to highlight the job losses, a subject they wouldn't touch with a ten foot poll. Apparently no one in the media is bright enough to challenge that garbage (until they read this...and they will) and that number will be thrown around in the weeks ahead.

In any case, this isn't just a typical lie. This is a huge one. After being caught spouting this intentionally deceptive falsehood there is simply no way any one could ever believe a thing that comes out of his worthless mouth.

A BIT OF TRUTH

So Rush lied again today. Nothing new there but this one was so big, such a whopper that I simply can't ignore it. Not to mention that he did it within 15 minutes of starting his show and announcing that he is 99.7% accurate. He does that a lot. While I don't have the time or inclination to prove that a lie I'll start with a real overt one. I can't quote him exactly but what he did say was that President Obama has raised the National Debt more in three years then the last three presidents combined. Of course that simply isn't true and anyone just partially aware of reality and having more then a few dozen brain cells would immediately know he was wrong. So, for all you Rush listeners I'll demonstrate exactly how wrong he is.

The last three Presidents were George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George H.W. Bush (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents ).

Since the President is sworn and his term starts January 20 I will use those dates. That would mean I need to check out the day George H.W. Bush took office (January 20, 1989) to the day Barack Obama took office, January 20, 2009.

My resource for the debt is http://www.treasurydirect.gov/ that offers a program to find the debt to the penny. Unfortunately it doesn't have a starting point in 1989 to use the direct calculation so the best I could do was November 29, 1989. Then it was $2,857,430,960,187.32. When Obama took office the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08 So, the last three presidents increased the debt $7,769,446,088,725.68 (actually a bit more since Bush got a pass for 8 months).

Today the debt is $15,585,576,040,333.70. That makes the current administration liable for $4,958,698,991,420.62 substantially less then the $7,769,446,088,725.68 Rush claims. That number is staggering, the burden is horrendous, and many factors play in to those numbers. But I'm not here to analyze that right now. I'm just proving Rush is a liar. It is, after all, totally and undeniably 100% not true that Obama increased the debt more then the last three presidents combined. (Side note: if I went strictly by the 3 year claim he made it would be less since on January 20, 2012 the debt was $15,236,271,879,792.78 but that's not necessary since I proved Rush wrong anyway).

After he or one of his staff members read this Rush may very well try and cover his butt by once again diverting attention and manufacturing some other lies but I'll cut him off at the knees right now. George H.W. Bush presided over a 46% increase in four years. William J. Clinton saw about a 30% increase over eight years, and George W. Bush ran up an increase of over 100% in his eight years. So far, Barack Obama has seen an increase of 32% in just under four years. Good thing he left out Reagan who also doubled the debt in his eight years.

Just the facts, just the truth. 

LET'S GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT

(Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams 1770)

ALL (without any exception that I have ever experienced) politicians are liars. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals. In fact, lying in politics is so pervasive that supporters of both parties knowingly buy in to the lies , perpetuate the lies, and support the lies and, I suspect, do so knowing they are lies. There are still plenty of people running around screaming “Death Panels” in response to so-called Obama Care. If you happen to be one of those keep your ignorant opinions to yourself and just go some where else.

While it's totally impossible to chronicle every lie and I get a real laugh when reading supposed “fact checker” sites there are some indisputable facts one needs to seriously consider before deciding to support a candidate. So I'm going to clarify a very salient fact … we have not had a balanced budget in over 50 years. The last time the national budget was “balanced” was in 1955 when the debt was $274,374,222,802.62 and dropped to $272,750,813,649.32 in 1956. That was followed by another drop to $270,527,171,896.43 in 1957. The following year the debt ballooned to $276,343,217,745.81 and has not seen a reduction since. Therefore, the last president to achieve a balanced budget was Dwight D. Eisenhower (a Republican if you think that really matters) back 1956. Plain, simple, and 100% indisputable.

In order to have a balanced budget regardless of the accounting tricks an administration may choose to use the proof is in the debt tally. One can simply not declare a balanced budget while the debt increases by billions of dollars on an annual basis. If you're spending less then you take in the debt will decrease. That is the only demonstration of a balanced budget. It has not happened in recent history.

Now I'm very much aware that many ignorant and/or lying supporters like to point to the Clinton administration as having achieved a balanced budget with some liars even declaring a surplus was generated but that clearly isn't true. During his administration the debt rose about 30% in eight years with no point that it actually decreased. Conclusion: Budget not balanced. By the way, that 30% translate to an increase of nearly $1,400,000,000,000 or an average growth of $175,000,000,000 a year. Hardly a budget anyone would call “balanced”. At least that's what an honest person would say.

I'm well aware of the more prominent accounting tricks and I'm sure there are multiple ways I'm not aware of to make it appear things are balanced but there is simply no way to avoid the hard fact that the debt is growing. It's pretty much like you pretending to have balanced your personal budget without taking in to account the ever growing balance on your credit cards. You haven't balanced your budget. Until you cover your expenses while paying down your debt, your budget is not balanced. Pretty simple.

I'm motivated to write this because, in particular, Newt Gingrich is running around taking credit for balancing the budget something like four years in a row while he was Speaker of the House. Since I'm pretty sure he didn't serve during the Eisenhower administration (though I haven't actually looked that up) he is lying and on more then one level. He's obviously appealing to the ignorant who believe the lie of Clinton's non-existent balanced budgets. Well, why not? If you believe one lie you're probably gullible enough to buy the other. But neither is true. The proof is right here.

Now, as I stated earlier, you can interpret (lie) about the budget in any number of ways but ultimately if you need to borrow almost two hundred billion dollars a year you haven't balanced anything. Credit where credit is due, he did reduce the rate of growth but did not balance the budget.

Of course there are multiple factors that occur every year during every administration that contribute to the deficit but that is what the job is all about. I've actually heard from more then one liar that Clinton was experiencing the benefits of Reaganomics which is a incredibly foolish thing to say. Clinton raised taxes. I'll leave the complete and utter failure of Reagan's voodoo economics for another time (like just in case some idiot is foolish enough to refer to it in some kind of positive manner).

Too many people will accept what ever drivel they get from their favorite source and cast their vote in a manner that will only encourage the lying. Most people really don't understand the debt, can't grasp the concept of a balanced budget, and will continue to weaken the country. Who has the answers? No one currently running for the job including the guy who now has it. But if you read this, at least you might be able to understand what kind of liars we're dealing with.  

Update

I'm putting Rush under more pressure then I realized and more then I had hoped for (tell him I said “Hi” by the way). Right after I posted the last blog I got in my car, turned on my radio and Rush was still harping on the “Post” story making sure (at least three times) that he mentioned the article was in yesterday's paper. While I'm sure he did mention that earlier I simply missed it. Now he was stressing it. In an obvious attempt to discredit any criticism that may come he probably felt safe emphasizing that the article was from yesterday, setting himself up to blow me off by simply saying something like “he never even read the story. How can he evaluate anything...blah, blah, blah”. And he would have a partial point except for the glaring fact that I admitted that and regardless, I was dead-on that he was once again evading the real issue.

And, just playing it safe, he took the opportunity to respond to a caller's comments that simply reading the article would not give anyone the impression he was trying to make. One had to read in to it like he did. So I did. Unlike his audience, I actually read the story and it bears absolutely no resemblance to the article he talked about.

Now since I didn't listen to his entire borecast I can't say for sure he quoted anything from it but if he did I didn't hear it. There's plenty to quote no matter what side you're on

“That last condition was a problem. For years, Democrats have mocked the Republican argument that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting the economy, an assertion for which evidence is scant. Many independent budget experts say the effect, if it exists, would be almost impossible to measure and useless in crafting a budget. Fiscal “snake oil,” some Democrats say.”

See, I almost fell for it! The whole point of the article was describe the sausage-making that took place during debate over raising the debt ceiling. The article clearly reflected the opinion of the author and participants of both sides of the deal making lied about what actually happened. What is very, very, very, very clear is that the Republicans refuse to raise tax rates despite the overwhelming mountain of evidence that it is the only viable solution to the rising debt.

He can not make a case otherwise so he avoids discussing the real issue. And he's on very safe ground knowing full well his listeners won't bother reading the story themselves and those that do will view it with Rush's unique slant. Once again he avoids the real problem and manufactures a totally irrelevant scenario to avoid any focus on the real issues.

Sorry that this may be a little fragmented and rambling but I don't have the luxury of time but the point is clear and easy to make. Now I have to post this and once again ruin Rush's day. His show is about to start and I want to make sure he sees this so I can tune in and hear him fumble to try and evade the facts yet again.

Faster Response Then I Anticipated

True to form (though a bit faster then I anticipated) the right-wing is already trying to hide the truth by trying to deflect attention from the point I made in my previous post. Right now, as I write this, Rush Limbaugh (whose staff has apparently been closely monitoring this blog) has rolled out some insignificant article he scrounged from the Washington Post purporting to portray the president as an obstructionist when debate over raising the debt ceiling was in full play. As always his observations are laughable but his pitiful attempt at obfuscation highlights more then a few elements of his consistent hypocrisy:

1) He's referencing the Washington Post! The unreliable, state run media organ. A source he continuously derides and criticizes. While I don't share his view of the 'liberal media" it is hypocritical for him to reference them. In fact, it is more proof that Rush only chooses to comment on stories that can be spun to buoy his beliefs.
2) I tried finding the article he was talking about, but I couldn't. Admittedly, I had a limited amount of time to do so but, it just wasn't any kind of major story and, judging by Rush's own comments, deservedly so.
3) While trying to steer people away from the the very significant point I made Rush has actually accentuated just how accurate I am. He simply can't address or deal with the facts exposed. Go ahead, re-read my last post. No way he can challenge me so he has to try and change the subject.

While I didn't think my insightful observation was all that significant it is clear that Conservatives/Republicans are more then anxious to keep anyone from thinking too much about how Republicans worked to keep the country down. Not mention additional proof that the Bush-Reagan tax cuts for the rich were detrimental to America.

Thanks Rush for once again proving how right I am.

I'm Back

With the presidential race looming I realized it's time for somebody to start telling the truth. While Republicans are rejoicing that the price of gas is rising and they can whole-heartily lie about how they can change that, they will also be deflecting attention from the rising National Debt they are 100% responsible for. My information comes from the most unlikely source...Fox News.

As equally surprising as getting some truth from Fox is their employment of Shepard Smith. This guy is actually a journalist who asks real questions and has a great deal of insight. I just can't imagine how he fits in to the Fox format.

The clip below is an interview Shep had with an "expert" regarding the then critical vote on raising the debt ceiling back in August. Don't just notice that the "expert" was dead wrong about the effect of the downgrade America got from S&P, but also try and notice how the two of them agreed on one very salient point:



The video was accompanied by an article that sort of boiled down the essence while avoiding the biggest point made in the interview. "...had they not extended the Bush era tax cuts...we'd be two (trillion) dollars better off then we are...". There was no disagreement on that by the guest. (Note: Shep actually said "two million dollars ahead" but he mis-spoke. The universal view is that the tax cuts cost the economy some $2,000,000,000,000 and Shep is smart enough to know that).

I certainly don't want Shep to lose his job over this but there it is, on Fox News of all places, that by forcing the president to extend the cuts that have obviously created no jobs we were forced by the Republicans to once again increase our debt despite what everyone at the time prophesied would be disastrous.

Now I know that too many people will view this as old news since the disscussion did take place last year, but the facts are the facts. I imagine shortly after I post this the link will be taken down but that will only help to prove my point.

Time For Some Truth

As the 2012 Presidential season begins to heat up so does the lying. One of the main issues should be (in a rational world) the economy. While I can understand why both parties will lamely try to dodge the issue, it will eventually come up and the lies will start pouring out. Unfortunately facts are facts and I finally found the time to compile the facts. The numbers are taken from www.treasurydirect.gov which may explain why dates are all September 30 instead of December 31. I also added the Presidents and their term with the Debt they inherited and the Debt they left. I separated the terms by using bold print. Since most people don't own a calculator (or don't know how to use one) I did a little math for you.

I put this together because I'm tired of hearing “unbiased” analysis and the results of “impartial” committees. I've been interested in this particular aspect of government ever since I heard that the National Debt had passed the $1,000,000,000,000 (Aside: I always write out those big dollar amounts. “One trillion dollars” doesn't nearly make the point a 1 followed by 12 zeroes makes) mark.

So here's the raw data with a few facts concerning the Presidential administrations associated with the Debt. Sorry I didn't lay it out neater but I lack the computer skill to format it any better without putting in a lot of time and I just don't want to bother. Besides, fancy graphs and colorful charts are designed to influence your perception.

And last, and most important, I am not unbiased. I've gone over these numbers many times in the past and things look pretty clear to me. I'll save that for the end.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999
5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998
5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997
5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996
5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995
4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994
4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993
4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992
4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991
3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990
3,233,313,451,777.25
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
09/30/1979
* 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978
* 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977
* 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976
* 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975
* 533,189,000,000.00


Gerald Ford 1974-1977 $533,189.000.000 to $698,840,000,000 = $165,651,000,000 or an increase of almost 25%. That comes out to about $3,100 for every man, woman and child in the US.

Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 $698,840,000,000.00 to $997,855,000,000.00 = $299015000000 or an increase of about 30%. That comes out to about $4348 per person.

Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 $997,855,000,000.00 to $2,857,430,960,187.32 = $1,859,575,960,187.32 or an increase of slightly less then 100%. That comes out to about $11,577 per person.

George H.W. Bush 1989-1993 $2,857,430,960,187.32 to $4,411,488,883,139.38 = $1,554,057,922,952 or an increase of about 46%. That's about $17,115 per person.

Bill Clinton 1993-2001 $4,411,488,883,139.38 to $5,807,463,412,200.06 = $1,395,974,529,061 or an increase of about 30%. That's about $20,636 per person.

George W. Bush 2001-2009 $5,807,463,412,200.06 to $11,909,829,003,511.75 = $6,102,365,591,311 or increase over 100%. That's about $39,000 per person.

Barack Obama 2009- present $11,909,829,003,511.75 to $15,503,030,151,312 = $3,593,201,147,801 or an increase of about 32%. It's currently $49,631 per person.


So, what to do with the facts? If your a politician you can do one of two things: You can take the most common route and lie about the historical data or, being used to lying, you can embellish the facts with outrageous claims since a basic rule in politics is that you never let the facts speak for themselves.

It should go without saying that the raw data needs to be viewed in context with the events at the time. Of course I have already done that. That's one of the reasons I compiled this list. In future posts I'll be referencing it to prove various points. In the meantime, here are some facts that are clear and concise and can easily be verified by the above:

1) From the above data it is very clear that in the years listed above, we have never had a balanced budget. NEVER! When constructing a budget you can lie in any number of ways with any kind of accounting method you choose but the Debt is a nasty thing. It's the money we borrowed to cover expenses we don't have the income to meet. Consequently, at some point the debt shouldn't increase. At some point, the Debt should actually decrease. Never happened.
2) Every President on the above list inherited massive Debt from the previous administration. And you can go a lot further back in history and say the same about almost any President. At one point in time (1919) the Debt began to drop from $27,390,970,113.12 to $16,185,309,831.43 (1930). After the Great Depression the Debt rose 250% from 1931( 16,801,281,491) to 1940 ($42,967,531,037). Did we spend our way out of the Depression?
3) It's easy to distort the truth based on being selective. For instance, Ronald Reagan entered office with a Debt slightly under $1,000,000,000,000 and left office with the economy almost $3,000,000,000,000 in the red. After eight years in office the Reagan administration added twice as much money to the Debt as the country had run up to that point. Based on the numbers, that is absolute, 100% true and totally indisputable. What that means can be interrupted by any number of people in any number of ways. Currently the Obama administration has upped the ante by raising the Debt almost $3,600,000,000,000 in half the time. What's that say?

Two things are readily apparent to me and that's just one of the reasons I put this together. As I noted in #1, Bill Clinton never balanced the budget but he did manage the Debt to a degree. Under the current trend that is commendable. But why lie about?

But since the myth of Clinton's Balanced Budget exists why shouldn't the opposition grab it's coattails? Newt is claiming he was the driving force behind 10 balanced budgets. That may be true if he was a member of Congress over 40 years ago. He may look it, but I doubt Newt is over 100 years old.

Now, you see, if you didn't know the facts you may well be suckered in to buying in to one or both of the above lies. Now I know full well a lot of people will be quick to point out it depends on circumstances and definitions. Maybe so, but if you tell me you balanced the budget, the budget better well be balanced. And by that I mean you better not be spending more then you take in. If it has some other meaning then you better clearly define it so we actually know what you're doing.

Sorry folks, but facts are facts and over the years we've all been suckered in to believing garbage just because somebody makes a statement with authority. Personally I find them all to be liars. Factually, the above proves it beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.