U.S. National Debt Graphic is Deceiving - FilteringCraig

U.S. National Debt Graphic is Deceiving

There is a graphics file that is being linked around the web on political sites involving George W. Bush’s effect on the U.S. National Debt. It is quite a shocking graphic, but it can be very misleading because it doesn’t take any other economic factors into account like GDP, inflation or anything else for that matter. Its not only about government debt, there is so many people in deep debt also who should consider Debt Relief Options to get out of it.

This is the graphic that people are looking at.

Now, I took the data set from that website and looked up Nominal GDP for the corresponding years. When you go ahead and take the US National Debt as a percentage of the Nominal GDP (which is not adjusted for inflation, etc either) it gives you a more clear picture of what has happened relative to the economy.

Keep in mind, I am not an economics expert of any kind. Hell, I am not even giving an opinion on Bush’s performance in terms of the U.S. National Debt, but I thought that if people were going to really look at the issue, they ought to be armed with something a little more meaningful than a raw number that hasn’t been adjusted for any of the economics that are also occurring at the same time that the nation is incurring a national debt.

  • GW

    The first graph isn’t even adjusted for inflation? It’s not all in 2005 dollars? Total junk if so!

    I find your second one very interesting, if it does account for those things. Maybe add another 2 top bars showing political majority in the House and Senate?

  • Brian

    How about one per speaker of the house. Denny doesn’t look so good.

  • http://alkali19.blogspot.com alkali

    Two comments:

    1) Suggest drawing the line the year after each president leaves office. W. isn’t responsible for the 2001 budget, Clinton isn’t responsible for the 1993 budget, etc. (There is some room for argument on this topic but basically the budget is set by the time a new president is inaugurated.)

    2) Suggest showing surplus/deficit as % of GDP, either instead of or in addition to debt. (Surplus/deficit relates to the current year budget while debt is the accumulation of prior year budget surpluses/deficits.)

  • William R. Barker

    GW took the words right out of my mouth!

    American Government 101: Congress – NOT THE PRESIDENT – has the power of the purse string.

    American Government 102: The President proposes… Congress disposes. (*SMILE*)

    Don’t get me wrong, as a true conservative Republican I’m FURIOUS at George W. Bush and the so-called “Republican” leadership of Congress, but blame must be apportioned fairly.

    CONGRESS has been ADDING money to Bush’s budget proposals. BUSH has refused to veto any spending bills or even offer any recision bills.

    CONGRESS stinks! BUSH stinks! This democracy thing just ain’t working…

  • Andrew Norris

    This is a brilliant graph, because it actually answers interesting questions. I had no idea that the 70s was an era of an historically low national debt.

    I have long been concerned about the the current rise under Bush, but finding historical metrics for it is pretty hard. Thanks for the useful data analysis!

  • Ellen1910

    Congress – NOT THE PRESIDENT – has the power of the purse string.

    Let’s see. [Looks in desk drawers] There must be a VETO pen around here somewhere. [Looks under desk] Nope; no VETO pen, there. [Goes to window; looks behind drapes] Damn; no VETO pen, anywhere.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com FilteringCraig

    I think the real problem, and the one which I was really trying to point out, is that simplistic conclusions are hard to draw from statistics. There are many factors.

  • defining democracy down

    So few true believers, so many Bush failures to downplay.

  • DMS

    May I also add that some Presidents and Congresses may have set into motion things (ie, entitlements) which only have a small impact on the budget initially, but grow exponentially long after they are gone. Roosevelt, Johnson, and (strangely) Nixon (and soon Bush, with his Medicare drug insanity) would be the guiltiest of budget-busting under this criteria.

  • cw

    I’m not sure what national debt even means. I think budget deficit/surplus would be more telling re institutional responsibility.

  • Robert

    Would also like a chart showing divided government and not (Dem Pres – Repub Congr – and vice versi). I would bet Divided Government is best for controlling spending.

  • Owen Callan

    I live in Ireland, so you could say im somewhat impartial in this whole debate. Isn’t the most interesting point about this graph that under every Democratic President the Debt:GDP ratio goes down or stagnates, and under every Republican President for the last 50 years (with the exception of Nixon) it goes up? Outside of the US (and even inside a lot of the time – my brother lives in CA) the common notion is that the Democrats are the ones who cant stop spending and the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives. I think the only real difference between them is that the Democrats will tax you to fund their spending and the Republicans will simply borrow and leave it for the next generation to pay for it.

  • Jimmm

    Under Clinton, the rising percentage of the national debt levelled off and started to decline. It began to rise precipitously under W, as it had during the entire tenure of Reagan and Poppy.

    This fiscal sanity-loving Republican DEFINITELY in the wrong party.

  • kiddicus maximus

    i want to know where all these people came from. you make one intelligent post and the flood gates open.

    Based on either graph, can we safely say that Bush (either one) was bad for our debt? yes. did we need a graph for that? no.

    I still point the finger at the red. Red congress + red president = red budget.

  • http://deezofeezo.blog-city,com deezo

    Yeah, maybe this isn’t the best time to mention that the top graph looks like a teenage girls tampon…

    While the bottom graph appears to look alot like the profile of Crankshaft from the funnies page.

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    I’m amazed that you have to go the whole way back to FDR to find a Democrat who grew the debt faster than the economy.

  • Lifetime Fiscal Conservative

    And don’t forget to add in the Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses which having been rising for years. In 2004 alone, the surplus was $190 billion. That means the true deficit spending for 2004 was not over $600 billion.

    Bush has been slurping those funds up while saying we have to rescue Social Security. Is it any wonder the man has zero credibility?

  • Lifetime Fiscal Conservative

    Hmmm. Lost a figure. The sentence should read:

    That means the true deficit spending for 2004 was not $412 billion, but over $600 billion.

  • bob bobberson

    If you want a true picture, you need to net out the social security trust fund. Part of this is just debt the US owes to itself. External debt is only $4.7 billion.

  • http://www.dittoheston.com dittoHeston

    The most entertaining aspect of this entire comment string is seeing George Bush the first referred to as “Poppy.” Now that’s good reporting.

  • marid

    Another factor of this debt is who it is owed to. I may be mistaken but I believe that the majority of our debt is now held by outside nations and interests. Red China and its 800B cash reserve is not someone you want to owe money to. The Saudis and others may not be any better. We are mortgaing our future when we should be paying cash. Even Mr. Reagan raised taxes his last three years in office so he would at least take in as much as we spent. Seems a novel idea now.

  • RichMiles

    Unless you used to be one, Deez, I would be curious to know how you know what a teenage girl’s tampon looks like…there are laws against that sort of thing.

    At any rate, haven’t we learned ANYthing about the Repugnicans’ tactics yet? The Bushies under Rove have refined the Big Lie to a fine art, but this nonsense has been going on since at least 1946, and probably would have begun sooner if that little thing called World War II hadn’t gotten in the way. Lemme give you kids a little primer:

    1) The fave tactic of the Reps is to tell a lie so many times that it starts to sound true, simply because we’ve heard it sooooo many times. This is why it’s just generally accepted now that the Dems are the “tax and spend party”, among many other pieces of “conventional wisdom” that most of America just accepts as gospel

    2) When the Reps say “tax and spend”, what they really mean is, tax the people with lots o’ money, and spend it on people who DON’T have much money. When they do the opposite of that definition of tax and spend, we get periods like what we’re in now: the rich get obscenely richer, and the rest of us take it up the arse.

    3) It’s no surprise to me that we have to go back to Truman (not Roosevelt, as alleged in a previous post) to find a Dem who grew the debt faster than the general economy – think about what was happening at that point in history: we had just fought a huge war, and were rebuilding much of Europe and part of Asia via foreign aid, and the armed forces were depleted and needed rebuilding, and the Cold War was just getting started, and we had a nuclear arsenal to create, and we were about to invade Korea. Read a little history, why dontcha?

    4) The Reps, by their stated nature, do not care about helping those in need – in the 24 or so years since the term “trickle-down economics” first came into use, it’s been proven that it simply does not work – the rich are too effing greedy to let anything trickle anywhere. But the Reps still use it as cover for…you guessed it…further enriching those who already own most of the country, and most of us in one way or the other.

    5) Remember Al Gore? He ran for prez or something an age ago. Remember his statement that “most of Gov. Bush’s tax cuts would go to the top 1% of income earners”? Remember “fuzzy math”? Truly, do Americans remember ANYTHING that happened earlier than last week’s episode of “Lost”? Gore told us the truth about Bush. Kerry and Dean and Molly Ivins told us the truth about Bush. And still, as a country, we elected him. Twice. Sort of.

    So we deserve what we’ve got. As the British paper, The Guardian asked on Nov. 3, 2004: How can 59 million people be so dumb?

    We were warned that this would happen, just as Michael Brown warned Bush that Katrina was going to be “a big one”. So stop treating what we’ve known for years about the most corrupt administration since Nero was in Rome as if it were NEWS. Bush and cronies aren’t content with MOST of the country’s wealth – they want ALL of it. Though if they achieve that goal, what they’ll do for household servants is a mystery to me.

    Remember Hillary’s remark about the “vast right-wing conspiracy”? She was right!

    The SocSec trust fund is kaput – Bush has it in his back pocket to pay for Bush’s War in Iraq.

    And don’t think the fact that China and Japan and Saudi Arabia own most of our debt paper is insignificant. Any of you ever had a mortgage company foreclose on you? Think about it.

    Geez! Americans are so naive sometimes! If we were the country we think we are, we’d be great – but we’re not, and we haven’t been since about 1963. And think about THAT too!

  • T69

    RichMiles – as soon as you said “Repugnicans” I tuned you out.

  • RichMiles


    T69 – if what you say is true, then you are exactly the kind of person who is largely to blame for the mess we’re in – the kind of person who, presumably, is a lifelong Republican (see, I can spell it right if I want), who voted for Bush simply because he’s a Republican too, and who can brook no criticism or SATIRE (for that’s what my spelling choice was, a small attempt at humor in a comment of otherwise serious intent) of your demigods. And if you did indeed stop reading my post at that point, then I can only say – your loss. You are a victim of the Big Lie, so thoroughly so that you don’t even recognize it.

    And if my assumptions in this post are correct (and unlike Republicans, I am at least willing to suggest I might NOT be correct), then you are part of the reason the country is in the ghastly mess we’re in now. You voted for him, and thus it’s partly your fault.

    I offer a challenge to you and to all who read this post: name me ONE THING – anything at all, a legislative proposal, a presidential edict, a speech of support for anything or anyone – that Bush has done in his entire 4 1/2+ years in office that has unquestionably benefited the majority of the American people (the majority he claims gave him his “mandate”), without ALSO benefiting, often to an obscene degree, Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Bush’s cronies and pals, or some combination of the above. Just ONE thing. I’ve put forth this challenge several times in the past two years, and no one yet has been able to do it. Can you? I would sincerely doubt it. You may write to me directly, or post your reply here. But frankly, I don’t think it can be done.

    Your loss, yes – but also our loss, to a degree we will not see clearly for probably 20 years or more. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I deeply resent those who, like you, don’t even bother to ask the questions.

  • kiddicus maximus

    repugnicans. heh.

    “I offer a challenge to you and to all who read this post: name me ONE THING – anything at all, a legislative proposal, a presidential edict, a speech of support for anything or anyone – that Bush has done in his entire 4 1/2+ years in office that has unquestionably benefited the majority of the American people (the majority he claims gave him his “mandate”), without ALSO benefiting, often to an obscene degree, Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Bush’s cronies and pals, or some combination of the above.”

    Support of the Gay Marriage Ban.
    the majority that voted for the Shrub wanted this. it unquestionably benefited them, and no one else. you’ll probably tear this to shreds, and feel free to – hell i voted against it. but it passed. it was endorsed by the Shrub.


  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    What piece of legislation are you referring to, Kiddicus? The Defense of Marriage Act was passed on Clinton’s watch. Bush’s try for a Constitutional amendment has gone nowhere. That aside, I’m still unclear how a gay marriage ban benefits anyone. It might make them feel better, but in terms of substantive benefits, I don’t see it.

  • Gaz

    Rich Miles: How about the ‘No Kid Left Behind Act’? Doesn’t the whole nation benefit by striving to realize the true potential of all of its citizens, especially those whose opportunities are seriously constrained by nothing other than fate?

  • kiddicus maximus

    chris –
    yea i have no idea. it was the first and only thing i could think of that didn’t have direct negative repercussions on people. well, not the MAJORITY of people. and i pay so little attention to politics that i don’t know who introduced what when and to whom. i was actually tyring to get a rise out of RichMiles. Thanks for stomping me flat. again.

  • http://www.dittoheston.com dittoHeston

    Gaz – If you honestly believe the No Child Left Behind debacle benefits anyone other than standardized testing companies and parochial schools, we need to talk. The program doesn’t address any of the roots of the problems with America’s public school system, nor does it, as the challenge called for, benefit a majority of the population.

  • Josh

    CIA factbook pegs external debt not at $4.7B, but $1.4T.

  • RichMiles

    Oh good, I get to nail at least two of you with only one post. To wit:

    Please note the full text of the challenge I issued: “name me ONE THING – anything at all, a legislative proposal, a presidential edict, a speech of support for anything or anyone – that Bush has done in his entire 4 1/2+ years in office that has unquestionably benefited the majority of the American people (the majority he claims gave him his “mandate”), without ALSO benefiting, often to an obscene degree, Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Bush’s cronies and pals, or some combination of the above.”

    1) The Gay Marriage bans and Bush’s support or tacit approval of state constitution does not qualify – as mentioned above, it allegedly ‘benefited’ only the radical religious right-wing closet cases who were not even legitimately a majority of Bush voters, much less a majority of the American people. Frankly, I don’t think it benefited anyone, it only served as a sop to his nutcase base. I don’t believe most Americans give a hairy rat’s ass about this issue, unless they or someone they are close to is gay, or their preachers told them what to think. So strike one.

    2) One’s positive view of the NCLB Act is, or should be, dampened somewhat by the states who are either suing the Federal govt. over it, or who have declared it (with evidence) an “unfunded mandate”, something Bush promised in the 2000 campaign never to do, with essentially punitive and unachievable goals built into it. It was also designed with the intent of busting the teachers’ unions, traditional hotbeds of Dem/Liberal support.

    But there’s no money to be made by the Cronies in education, so it remains underfunded, at best.

    Gaz, the answer to your question, “Doesn’t the whole nation benefit by striving to realize the true potential of all of its citizens, especially those whose opportunities are seriously constrained by nothing other than fate?” is yes – but I don’t agree, and most educators I’ve read or spoken to don’t agree, that NCLB does that. It was political show from the beginning, and while there have been some positive results from some of its provisions, they have, by and large, been mostly incidental.

    Trying to get a rise out of me…sheesh. Why dontcha do something with a little challenge to it, kiddicus?

    So – two down. Anyone else wanna step into the ring?

  • Richmiles

    I left a little bit out of a sentence above:

    Bush’s support or tacit approval of state constitution

    should read:

    Bush’s support or tacit approval of state and federal constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage

    Just as an aside, I sometimes wonder if our president or members of Congress even know what it takes to amend the US Consititution. It’s a lot harder than they seem to think it is. Now STATE constitutions are mostly a different matter – all most of them require is for the majority party to “decide” what they want the people to think, and then ram it through the state legislature. It happened here in Kentucky where I (blush) live.

  • RichMiles

    And one last question for those of you who have been using this site longer than I: Why does the Post a Comment block ask if I want it to “remember me”, then fail to do so? Any ideas?

  • Cynic

    You’d be hard pressed to find anything on anyone’s list of accomplishments which was only to the benefit of the “the people” without also being to the benefit of the “benefactors”.

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    OK, I’ll play. But understand that I’m not a W fan. I just can’t resist a new game. Two possibilities. The first is the whole faith-based initiative program. Funnels federal money straight to the folks who elected him (and others), in their churches. My second suggestion is the child tax credit, which sent $400 per child to a whole mess of taxpayers, including me.

  • RichMiles


    Short answer: no, and no.

    Longer answer: the faith-based initiatives are almost acceptable – no one (so far as I’ve seen) has managed to ferret out any corruption in this area, though it’s early days yet. But in reality, this idea and the presidential action that went with it was Bush’s first salvo at making clear what Bush was going to do in terms of theocracy, and was also to stave off the Bush family’s worst nightmare: actually having to do something for the benefit of poor people. Pass it off to the churches, was the essential message, and it lets the government off the hook for some of it. And it allows the religious nuts not only to help the poor, but to preach and proselytize at the same time, all with government approval – a win-win situation for radical religious nutcases.

    Second, the child tax credits, and the – what was it? – $300 or so “refund” checks we all received. When compared with the billions of dollars in tax cuts received by that upper 1%, it kinda makes the rest of us look like saps, doesn’t it? And cheaply-bought saps at that. While the refunds cost a lot nationwide, they were one-offs, and the tax cuts to the rich are (so far, pending renewal) ongoing. The CTC’s are being considered for removal, or so the WashPost said last month. I’ll see if I can’t find the link for a future post.

    Cynic – you say “You’d be hard pressed to find anything on anyone’s list of accomplishments which was only to the benefit of the “the people” without also being to the benefit of the “benefactors”. In addition to being a bit circular in the way you word it, it’s not quite true. I refer you to the Welfare Reform acts of the Clinton administration – while some welfare receipients may disagree that yanking their benefits was a good thing (who wouldn’t prefer receiving govt benefits for no work?), and while there have undoubtedly been instances in which difficulties were created by the policy, by and large it’s been reasonably beneficial both for the recipients and the taxpayers, which two groups would probably add up to a majority of the American people. And though I have no data to prove it, I would suspect that this act contributed significantly to the creation of surpluses in the Fed budget that existed when Clinton left office.

    So no, I don’t think anyone has met the challenge yet. It’s a principal tenet of the Bush administration (and yes, probably ALL administrations to a lesser degree) that “the people” don’t pay attention to details, and that things which look like good ideas on the surface, but have negative consequences intended or un-, almost never are examined to find the connections to the negative or the corruption created by it. I recommend to your collective and respective attention an article in the Oct. 1 NY Times headlined, “Contract Killers” by Matthew Continetti, which in addition to other points, makes this case in a somewhat clearer fashion – essentially, most Americans are not paying attention to what their government is doing.

    The challenge still stands unmet.

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    Dude, none of what you said has anything to do with the rules you set out. For instance, I don’t remember the No Saps Rule. In fact, based on your arguments, it looks like there’s no winning this “challenge.” I’m filing a complaint with the commissioner.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com FilteringCraig

    What’s really neat is declaring victory in your own game, while setting the rules. Seems like a cool game all the way around.

  • RichMiles


    No seriously, Chris, let me clarify what I was trying to get at in the original challenge (and I agree, it may be impossible to win it, which was kinda the whole point to begin with, and not that there’s a prize even if you do):

    It seems like perhaps there’s some confusion as to what the term “the majority of the American people” means. In an attempt to get a little jab in, I added the sentence about “the majority he claims gave him his mandate”, which may have made it seem as if I meant the majority of the people who voted for Bush, which is by no means a majority of the entire American population. This seems to have led some of those who have responded to offer examples etc. that benefited only that small segment, or even the smaller sub-segment of the radical religious right, as examples of benefited majorities. I’m sorry if this caused confusion or made it seem I was just being snarky (though I am).

    As for none of what I said in the previous post having to do with the rules I set out, I respectfully disagree. The reply to Cynic was a bit off topic (as is this whole thread, considering what’s at the top of the page), but in sum, I don’t think that Bush’s presidential behavior which is seen as beneficial to his “base”, most of whom I consider weak-minded sheep who will follow anything that appeals to their need to find justifications for their empty and bigoted existences, is in fact beneficial to the long- or short-term interests of more than 50% of all American people. In many cases, IMHO, it is exactly the opposite – his actions are detrimental to those same interests in the short and extremely long terms. And the challenge consists of asking someone to show me an unequivocal case where I am wrong, and so far the examples offered do not do so. Again, IMHO.

    If I can sum up my position on this discussion in one sentence, it would be this: Bush, in a so-far more or less successful effort to win votes and cement the power of the radical right, panders to a small but noisy and self-righteous and hypocritical segment of the American people in almost all he does or says, and this does not, despite his and their attempts to suggest otherwise, do the rest of us any good at all.

    So file your complaint with the commissioner. See if I care. It’s my game, and I make the rules.


  • RichMiles

    “What’s really neat is declaring victory in your own game, while setting the rules. Seems like a cool game all the way around.”

    Geez…kinda makes me look like a Republican, doesn’t it? I hope my previous post clarifies a little, but believe me, this was not my intention. I’ve at least tried to explain WHY I don’t think the offered answers meet the criteria, haven’t I? Huh? Haven’t I?

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    I’m not enough of a masochist to bash my forehead any further against your auto-correcting premises, Rich.

  • RichMiles

    Sorry to have created what seems to be some sort of hard feelings, Chris. That was certainly not my intention. But I respectfully suggest that you haven’t really read what I’ve said very carefully. There’s a reason why almost every post I’ve done on this topic is pretty long – it’s because I was trying to be clear.

    When I posted the original challenge, I merely meant to make the point that, even though almost every politician coddles their respective special interests, contributors, cronies, etc., the Bush administration has turned it into an art form, as witness the Michael Brown episode, the Julie Myers episode (which broke AFTER the Michael Brown firing), etc etc. In fact, as I pointed out, I didn’t think it could be done, and so far, I think you have to agree that there hasn’t been one single unequivocal example. But no, I wasn’t changing the rules as I went along, I was merely disagreeing with the proposed answer, and trying to explain why I disagreed.

    So – if you don’t want to play, don’t play. But I respectfully submit that what I say in this post is what I’ve done, and those who have offered potential answers haven’t offered documentation or even particularly detailed explanation of why they think their idea qualifies – one person, kiddicus I think, even says that he doesn’t know enough about politics to really offer an answer, then proceeds to offer an answer that I (and a couple others) found inadequate. So why do you think I should simply accept any answer anyone offers?

    I don’t want to play any more either. Your last post kinda took the fun out of it, so forget I asked.

  • Gaz

    Geezus, Rich, are “brief” or “concise” in your vocab?

    Kinda makes you look like a Republican?!? No, I’d say it makes you totally look like a Democrat. Democrats don’t like the rules as written, because they can’t win by them. So they complain and whine instead. Or constantly move the goalposts as you’ve been doing …

    Listen to Clinton. He been saying to Dems to stop being such whiney babies, and get on with it! Clinton, for all his foibles, at least knew how to win.

  • RichMiles

    Oh!!! I get it!! I say something, and then you just…turn it around, and do the moral equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”. Clever…very clever indeed.

    But unless I’m forgetting an entire era of congressional history (and I might be), I don’t think the Democrats, when they were the majority, ever sought to change their OWN rules in the House to protect the power and seat of a Majority Leader who they were pretty sure was about to be indicted. Their failure to do so is one of the few times I can remember that the Republicans actually paid any attention to what the American people were saying – and only then because they thought they’d lose votes if they didn’t.

    The kind of empty rhetorical nonsense contained in your post, Gaz, is exactly why people like me hate having to deal with Republicans – the issue at hand is not addressed, and the discussion gets sidetracked to a distraction on form or style that has nothing to do with the problem. One can only have one’s attempts to address the real issues diverted to BS so many times before it really pisses a person off.

    Like I said, forget I asked.

  • RichMiles

    And BTW, I agree with Clinton as you quote him – the Dems ARE being a bunch of pussies. But the biggest part of the problem is not that they have NO ideas to make things better, but that they have too MANY ideas, and are fighting amongst themselves about which ones to stand behind. Just as ineffective in the long run, but at least it gives one hope that somebody is thinking about something besides enriching the wealthy and getting their pals federal jobs.

  • Kevin

    Back to the original subject of the post: I’m not convinced you can look at a graph like this and draw any meaningful conclusions.

    If anyone cares to do the work, I’d be interested, as previous posters, to see the party of the congressional majority instead of the President, and with the GDP shifted by 5 years or so, since it probably takes at least that long for the economy at large to adjust to the legislated changes in tax and regulatory policies.

    I honestly have no idea what the outcome would be. I am just always suspicious of neatly wrapped up little packages like this.

    Somebody said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Date Base eBooks
Créditos sin nómina
Crédito Proyecto de Cofidis
Préstamos sin aval y sin nómina
Cofidis Crédito Directo
Prestamos rapidos en un dos por tres con Enprestamo.es
Solicitar préstamos particulares con Enprestamo.es son sólo ventajas
Dinero con ASNEF a través de Enprestamo.es
EnPrestamo es la solución para el dinero fácil
Las ventajas de los créditos rápidos online
Conseguir dinero rápido es fácil con enprestamo.es