Reagan 189.0%
Bush 43 89.0%
Bush 41 51.6%
Carter 42.6%
Clinton 36.0%
Obama 34.0%

OK let me firstly say that I am in no way doing this to support republicans but the numbers seemed kinda fishy and misleading so I crunched some numbers and would like to point out a shortfall in the stats.

Also I’m not a mathematician so someone point me out if I am wrong, pretty please.

Percentages mean very little when compared directly over time, because a high percentage BEFORE the debt has been hiked 4-5 times will mean a lot less than small percentage after the debt is already super crazy high.  In other words, the percentage increase over time SHOULD naturally go down, because increasing the % of a 1 Trillion dollar debt as compared to a 1 Billion dollar debt takes a LOT more spending.  Imagine the debt was 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999, I think we all would be super pissed with even a 1% increase.  I don’t know exactly how inflation would play into this because I’m not an economy master but here are my numbers:

Let’s assume the debt before Carter was $1 (LOL, RIGHT?), just to make things easy for me mathematically.   With the real #’s it will just be much more drastic than my hypothetical ones.

Pres     % inc     Running debt     Amount difference?

PRIOR TO CARTER    $1             ———

Carter     42.6%        $42.60      $42.60

Reagan    189%      $123,11      $80.51

Bush41    51.6%     $186.63      $63.52

Clinton    36%       $253.82      $67.19

Bush43     89%      $479.72    $225.90

Obama    34%      $642.82     $163.10

When we take into account what these numbers really mean, and account for the running increase in debt (which proportionally affects how much the % really counts) we see the real professional spenders in this are Bush 43 and Obama.  So a Reagan difference of 189% (since the debt was much smaller back than) is almost 3x less than the spending that occurred from the Bush43 reign, which was statistically 100% less and more than 2x less than Obama at 34%.

Oops, misleading stats ftl.  Also comparing this knowing Carter, Bush41, and Obama have only 1 term under their belts is pretty unfair.  Given 2 terms, their numbers would be higher. I feel like I’m back in statistics class.  Again, someone point me out if I did something wrong.

(Source: azspot, via phazes)