Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In January 1981 Ronald Reagan assumed a total national debt of less than $1 trillion...about $980,000,000,000. By the time he and George H. W. Bush left office in January 1993 the debt had quadrupled to $4.4 trillion.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the upper 1% of taxpayers in this country and even though it took eight years to do it he balanced the annual budget and generated about $450 billion of surplus in fy's 1999,2000 and 2001. If things had been simply left the way he had them set up the total national debt could have been paid off by 2012.
George W. Bush came along in January 2001 and immediately granted a huge tax cut with half of it going to the wealthiest among us. His eight years doubled the national debt to nearly $11 trillion. From surplus to massive debt on which the annual interest is now nearly $500,000,000,000 a year. Each and every year we have to pay that interest. For comparison we spend about $100 billion on education and less than that on the infrastructure. The wealthiest among us doubled their wealth during those eight years while ordinary work-a-day Americans lost value on their wages after the effect of inflation was entered into the picture.
Besides all that the banks ran the economy into a ditch while the Bush administration never even included it's two wars into the regular annual budgets but covered all the costs as "Supplemental Spending."
It does seem a bit ridiculous to Blame Obama for rising deficits. It IS necessary to spend in order to combat a major recession. . . that is the only hope for avoiding real financial disaster. Bush's spending, however, was unfunded wars combined with "cooking" of the books in order to get by with it, financially. The burden was left to the next guy, the recession was left to the next guy. . .isn't that convenient for the Repub.'s? Is'nt the rising debt a great campaign point of the Repub's. . . they must figure that as O is now pres, he will be blamed, and that may be true. . . a testimony to the intelligence of those who are voting for the party of "spend and switch". . . "government for and by the powerful" crowd. The real villians, of course, are not the uneducated, easily swayed citizens that are doing the voting, but the Roves, and Cheneys and other of their ilk that are engineering a campaign based on lies and with a total lack of regard for the history of what got us in this mess to start with. . .
In January 1981 Ronald Reagan assumed a total national debt of less than $1 trillion...about $980,000,000,000. By the time he and George H. W. Bush left office in January 1993 the debt had quadrupled to $4.4 trillion.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the upper 1% of taxpayers in this country and even though it took eight years to do it he balanced the annual budget and generated about $450 billion of surplus in fy's 1999,2000 and 2001. If things had been simply left the way he had them set up the total national debt could have been paid off by 2012.
George W. Bush came along in January 2001 and immediately granted a huge tax cut with half of it going to the wealthiest among us. His eight years doubled the national debt to nearly $11 trillion. From surplus to massive debt on which the annual interest is now nearly $500,000,000,000 a year. Each and every year we have to pay that interest. For comparison we spend about $100 billion on education and less than that on the infrastructure. The wealthiest among us doubled their wealth during those eight years while ordinary work-a-day Americans lost value on their wages after the effect of inflation was entered into the picture.
Besides all that the banks ran the economy into a ditch while the Bush administration never even included it's two wars into the regular annual budgets but covered all the costs as "Supplemental Spending."
What a Farce!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717
It does seem a bit ridiculous to Blame Obama for rising deficits. It IS necessary to spend in order to combat a major recession. . . that is the only hope for avoiding real financial disaster. Bush's spending, however, was unfunded wars combined with "cooking" of the books in order to get by with it, financially. The burden was left to the next guy, the recession was left to the next guy. . .isn't that convenient for the Repub.'s? Is'nt the rising debt a great campaign point of the Repub's. . . they must figure that as O is now pres, he will be blamed, and that may be true. . . a testimony to the intelligence of those who are voting for the party of "spend and switch". . . "government for and by the powerful" crowd. The real villians, of course, are not the uneducated, easily swayed citizens that are doing the voting, but the Roves, and Cheneys and other of their ilk that are engineering a campaign based on lies and with a total lack of regard for the history of what got us in this mess to start with. . .
Both posts have truth in them. But I believe it is more bi partisan. Both parties are screwing us over. They just do not care about us anymore.
Its about us vs Government and ultra wealthy corporatists. Sorry to inform you.
It does seem a bit ridiculous to Blame Obama for rising deficits. It IS necessary to spend in order to combat a major recession. . . that is the only hope for avoiding real financial disaster. Bush's spending, however, was unfunded wars combined with "cooking" of the books in order to get by with it, financially. The burden was left to the next guy, the recession was left to the next guy. . .isn't that convenient for the Repub.'s? Is'nt the rising debt a great campaign point of the Repub's. . . they must figure that as O is now pres, he will be blamed, and that may be true. . . a testimony to the intelligence of those who are voting for the party of "spend and switch". . . "government for and by the powerful" crowd. The real villians, of course, are not the uneducated, easily swayed citizens that are doing the voting, but the Roves, and Cheneys and other of their ilk that are engineering a campaign based on lies and with a total lack of regard for the history of what got us in this mess to start with. . .
You don't think the fact that within months after he took office he cut the taxes Bill Clinton had put into effect which as soon as it became law entitled the wealthiest in this country to massive windfall income had anything to do with it? I mean the facts of the matter are that when Bill Clinton left office the congress was arguing with the administration about what we would do with the surpluses.
FACT: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush have borrowed 80% of all the debt which this great republic has accumulated in 233 years. That's four of every five dollars and the wealthy are the ones who benefitted from their actions.
You don't think the fact that within months after he took office he cut the taxes Bill Clinton had put into effect which as soon as it became law entitled the wealthiest in this country to massive windfall income had anything to do with it? I mean the facts of the matter are that when Bill Clinton left office the congress was arguing with the administration about what we would do with the surpluses.
But they said nothing about the gaping hole they left in SS to obtain that surplus ?
I mean the facts of the matter are that when Bill Clinton left office the congress was arguing with the administration about what we would do with the surpluses.
THERE WERE NO SURPLUSES...
This is like borrowing against your mortgage and then at the end of the year looking at the $100K you have in the bank this year that you didnt have last and proclaiming.. "Wow, we had a fabulous year"...
But they said nothing about the gaping hole they left in SS to obtain that surplus ?
LOL!
Grasping at straws. As we speak social security is the only government program in existance which continues to take in enough to cover expenses. Granted it's days are numbered but facts are facts. That of which you speak is nothing but shifting the IOU's which both parties had left as they spent up the surpluses associated with past payments into social security. Besides that...Republicans have fought the existance of social security ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt put it into effect so poor Americans wouldn't have to end up in county poor houses and be buried in pauper's graveyards. Ever visited one of the old graveyards near the old county poor farms which began to disappear in the 1950's when folks first began to draw social security? A bunch of unmarked graves next to the ones who were lucky enough to have one that was marked.
Just curious...have you thought about what the social security fund would be worth now if George W. Bush had succeeded in shifting funds to the stock market? My 401k and two IRA's my wife has are currently worth about 2/3 of what they were when Bush was innagurated.
The Republicans are using the strategy that if you keep repeating it people will believe you. Crazy, but it works at least for a certain segment group.
In January 1981 Ronald Reagan assumed a total national debt of less than $1 trillion...about $980,000,000,000. By the time he and George H. W. Bush left office in January 1993 the debt had quadrupled to $4.4 trillion.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the upper 1% of taxpayers in this country and even though it took eight years to do it he balanced the annual budget and generated about $450 billion of surplus in fy's 1999,2000 and 2001. If things had been simply left the way he had them set up the total national debt could have been paid off by 2012.
George W. Bush came along in January 2001 and immediately granted a huge tax cut with half of it going to the wealthiest among us. His eight years doubled the national debt to nearly $11 trillion. From surplus to massive debt on which the annual interest is now nearly $500,000,000,000 a year. Each and every year we have to pay that interest. For comparison we spend about $100 billion on education and less than that on the infrastructure. The wealthiest among us doubled their wealth during those eight years while ordinary work-a-day Americans lost value on their wages after the effect of inflation was entered into the picture.
Besides all that the banks ran the economy into a ditch while the Bush administration never even included it's two wars into the regular annual budgets but covered all the costs as "Supplemental Spending."
What a Farce!!
The breakfast causes lunch argument again? Slow down...take a few minutes to read the Constitution. Presidents have little to do with the budgets that are actually passed. The president may lobby for certain reforms, but Congress passes the budget that goes to the president. Bill Clinton didn't raise taxes on anyone since all tax bills must originate in the House. As for Reagan and Bush Sr., neither had a line item veto or a Republican Congress. Your assertion that Clinton created a surplus that Dubya squandered is mindless cheer leading. The surplus we realized was due to Republican initiatives that limited increases in federal spending (see 1995-96 government shutdown, see Republican Revolution of 1994).
Supplemental spending?
How about the "Doc Fix" the Dems wanted to use to hide the real cost of Obamacare?
Until you recognize that BOTH parties are to blame for this debt, you're just being moved around the chess board like the good little pawn you are.
That said, there's a couple of things worth noting.
First, while the debt did grow under Reagan, so did production. Compare that to the massive spending by the current administration and the lack of any growth to show for it. Reagan also brought down the Soviet Union, leaving the U.S. as the sole superpower in the world. Obama's standing by and watching while Russia is starting to rebuild its empire.
Second, Clinton was just in the right place at the right time. The explosion of the Internet and the tech sector in the late '90s was the reason for the economic boom, and it would have happened regardless of who was occupying the white house. If you want to credit Clinton for the boom times during his administration, then you have to credit Obama for the bust times he's presiding over now. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
I'm obviously no fan of the Democrat party, but neither party has clean hands when it comes to the economy or the national debt. Congress controls the purse strings, and regardless of who has a simple majority, it takes two to tango. Both parties have been dancing all the way to the bank - with our money.
Also interesting is that you're ranting against Republican spending, but I don't see anything in your OP about the health care or carbon proposals that the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats while the deficit balloons like it's doing. Why is that?
Here's an idea - STOP SPENDING. If you want your debt to go down, you don't go and buy a Lamborghini. If you were serious about your position regarding the national debt, you'd stop blaming just the Republicans and acknowledge that everybody in Washington has their hand on the plunger that's entering your backside.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
