You just hate Obama because he's black. Or at least half black.

 

I like it, Funny, but is really true?

 

 

In terms of counting a dollar as a dollar yes it is.

In terms of present day value of money, no.

The one I can recall off the top of my head; the US undertook ~ $ 800 Million in debt to fight the Revolutionary War.

This is using unskilled labor costs as the NPV conversion to 2009 money.

I only know this, as Obama spent ~ 750M in the pave America beautiful program to get union workers back to work ( to reset their UE ins clock ) and fund DOE projects like Johnson Controls battery plant in MI ( to the tune of ~ $2M per job created ), Solyndra, and the other winners they have going on. Beacon Power ( flywheel Grid storage company ) is the latest with $ 43M in loans before going bankrupt. They have some assets, but they are not worth what it cost to purchase and install them.

 

It's still Bush's fault.

 

No.
Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, paid off the National Debt so that eliminates the first six Presidents in this exercise.
There are other considerations as well but, I don't want to trample on anyones fun.

 

Fixed it for ya Raoul.

 

Adding debt of + 40M and -40M is zero and adding another -40M shows a surplus of 40M ( debt = -40M ) for all 3 FY.

This example is not incorrect to call it 1 FY with a 40M surplus, but it is also 3 FY and a surplus of 40M.

With this in mind, it is correct to say 1789 to 2008.

EDIT : - Went back to find the year this happened to change the range and found a lot more:
If you are going to call this out, be sure to include the items that go with it.
1. It lasted only 1 year; 1835, and then back to deficit spending in 1836.
2. How he got there:
2.1. He blocked every spending bill he could.
2.2.The money he got was from selling off the government owned land in the west at an inflated price due to a land bubble.

Oddly enough the land bubble that was going on while he was in office looks vaguely familiar to the one that Clinton had when he was in office, and had 1 year of running a theoretical surplus.
Strange, the resulting bust of the land bubble started a recession that was the longest in the history of the country to that point ( 6 years ).

- Didn't he have something about sending in federal troops to force states to collect tariffs ??

I want to thank you for making me go look to change the date range.
Found another example of : 'Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it' ( single quotes, that is the paraphrase of what was really said ).

I already called out this is adding 1 dollar as 1 dollar without NPV being taken into account.

Aside from this 1 item, what are the other considerations you are referring to ?

 

That's an outdated graphic.

$6.3 Trillion + $6.5 Trillion = $12.8 Trillion.

The current debt is $15.1 Trillion (and let's not forget the $116 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, but that's another thread).

An additional $2.3 Trillion in debt has been added under Obama since that graphic was current, increasing his number to $8.8 Trillion.

BTW, $15.1 Trillion is $134,xxx per taxpayer.

The unfunded liabilities are another $1,036,xxx per taxpayer, and going up every second.

www.usdebtclock.org

 

I'm a shill for Obama, members wouldn't be interested in what I have to say here.

 

So the plural was just to make it sound as if the JPEG was out of whack multiple ways, instead of just the one way.

I like the dodging the Jefferson 'correction'

Fly in, stir - stir - stir, and exit

 

Three sentences, three insults.
And you wonder why I won't play.

 

Insults ??

1st line : You claim multiples inconsistencies when there is only 1. Where is the insult ? I corrected your claim of multiples, if that is insulting, you should not have claimed it.

2nd line : You did dodge the correction to the Jefferson comment you made. The 3 FY surplus example, no comment on it what so ever. You want to make it seem to be 6 less presidents ( less the non NPV number ), to try to minimize it, where the JPEG is still correct. You only quote the multiples line from my post. Where is the insult ? This is what happened.

3rd line : This is what happened. You made incorrect statements, get called out on them, and avoid any backup data to suggest otherwise, post a "I would, but you would not listen' post.
You are taking your ball and going home when you confront someone that does their own research on the topic rather than take your post as fact.

If you find it insulting to have your opinion presented as fact, corrected by facts, then you must have been, and will be, insulted a lot in life.

 

the bold is a backhanded insult, I can't help if you are unable to grasp this.

I really didn't want to tackle your convoluted explanation. It was Jackson by the way, not Jefferson.
My premise is Washington thru Adams should be excluded.

Your premise is your grandfather bought a house financed it, paid it off and owned it outright, ...if only for a year (1835).
Then your dad got it, refinanced it never paid it off.
Then you got it, also financed and never paid it off.
Now you have pictures on the mantle of all the men who have never owned the house outright, including a picture of your grandfather.
(Your grandfather would say, not so fast SSCULLY.)


I thought damiansalmond was asking a legitimate question and if I simply pointed out that Washingtons pic shouldn't be there and instead it should be Jacksons, (as he did leave Office with debt), then daniansalmonds curiosity may have been peaked on the subject, if he so desired.
He then might discover other consideration s, such as one could just slide a Clinton pic overtop the Bush pic, then slide the Bush overtop the the Obama pic and it's still factually accurate ...you know, simple stuff like that.

But then, the whole jpeg losses it's shock value and that's not really what the creator was trying to acheive.