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.
The obvious part is that hardly anyone had heard about these guys till only recently. Based on history (National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), I've "news" for you - deficits wll be there even when Rs are in power, but t-baggers will be much more 'understanding of that situation'.
I dont care if hardly anyone heard about them until recently, other peoples lack of listening doesnt mean the sound isnt being made.
Except that Congress sets the budget and through the majority of those years the Democratic party held the majority of Congress.
And yet conservatives don't stop blaming Obama for the current debt and financial crisis.
So how does that work, when Democrats control Congress under a Republican president, it's Congress' fault, but when a split Congress is under a Democratic president, it's the President's fault?
In other words, always remove the blame from the Republican controlled portion of the government. We call that a massive double standard.
why disagree over what is clearly unsustainable? the numbers are bad any way you slice it and you might want to review the charts.
No, in fact they do not "take liberties in its reporting." You simply do not comprehend the difference between deficits, surpluses, and the National Debt.
You can continue to increase the National Debt even while having budget surpluses, which is precisely what happened in 1998, 1999, and 2000. The GOP controlled Congress spent less than what was budgeted, which gave them a surplus. However, what was actually spent was still more than total revenues, thereby increasing the National Debt.
And yet conservatives don't stop blaming Obama for the current debt and financial crisis.
Actually we blame Democrats for most of it, but are you seriously going to stand here and tell us Obama didnt lead the plan for Obamacare and the stimulus bill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude
The 55 vs 80% could also be because OP was talking about this report from (Critics Still Wrong on What). In that, instead of adding up the actual deficits under each administration, they talked about the general impact of war and tax cuts. In other words, each party 'owns' the impact of its policy and not, for example, do tax cuts and hand it over to Obama's numbers. It is a different way of looking at policy.
That charts been proven wrong so many times, that I find it utterly astounding that you continue to use it.
Tarp RETURNED a profit, and the Bush tax cuts, resulted in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in ADDITIONAL revenues, not deficits.
who ever wrote this article is lying to you, congress is incharge of the purse of the U.S.A. and not the president. if you notice when bill clinton was president the line went down, thats because congress was control by republicans, they decided to hold clinton from spending to the point that government shut down for some time. the very same thing that was happening a few week ago with the republican control house and Obama. to bad the republicans caved in. the fact is Obama has spend more money then both Bushs and Clinton together and he is not done with his first and last term as president. god help us if he wins a second term he will probably outspend all the presidents from washigton to Bush!
No, in fact they do not "take liberties in its reporting." You simply do not comprehend the difference between deficits, surpluses, and the National Debt.
You can continue to increase the National Debt even while having budget surpluses, which is precisely what happened in 1998, 1999, and 2000. The GOP controlled Congress spent less than what was budgeted, which gave them a surplus. However, what was actually spent was still more than total revenues, thereby increasing the National Debt.
Actually we blame Democrats for most of it, but are you seriously going to stand here and tell us Obama didnt lead the plan for Obamacare and the stimulus bill?
That charts been proven wrong so many times, that I find it utterly astounding that you continue to use it.
Tarp RETURNED a profit, and the Bush tax cuts, resulted in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in ADDITIONAL revenues, not deficits.
No, in fact they do not "take liberties in its reporting." You simply do not comprehend the difference between deficits, surpluses, and the National Debt.
You can continue to increase the National Debt even while having budget surpluses, which is precisely what happened in 1998, 1999, and 2000. The GOP controlled Congress spent less than what was budgeted, which gave them a surplus. However, what was actually spent was still more than total revenues, thereby increasing the National Debt.
Wrong.. thats not at all how they had "surpluses".. They had surpluses because they ONLY counted PUBLIC debt, and ignored intragovernmental borrowing.
To compare this to a household, they borrowed against their home, and because they had cash in the bank they claimed a surplus, ignoring the huge mortgage they just took out.
Having cuts in spending doesnt create surpluses. If it did, we could just project doubling of federal spending yearly, and then surprise, we didnt.. woo hoo, surpluses.. only a silly fool would buy that one.
..the chart is for projections from '09-19 and have nothing to do with earlier numbers.
So its your position now that the profits from TARP just "disappeared" in 2009, and suddenly in 2009, tax cuts became a cost rather than a generator to the economy? Wow.. what happened to cause this sudden change in your opinion?
Not quite. For one thing, it was a Republican senate from 1980 to 1986, so that means that the GOP controlled the White House veto power and the Senate. The Dems could do absolutely nothing unless the Republicans signed off on it, and we all know that they wanted defense spending and tax cuts for the rich. The GOP had a chance to show their budget-cutting credentials from 2000 to 2006 and ended up bloating the budget. The facts do not square with the untruths that you and other GOP/Tea Party supporters keep repeating.
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.
