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.
We won`t have the FINAL cost of the Iraq war until the last Iraq veteran is deceased. Keep in mind we have 24,000 wounded soldiers to care for including 6,000 double amputees. The final tally for this fiasco could come in at 6 trillion dollars or more. Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters
No, the cost was $806 billion according the CRC. The other numbers are made up. In any case the future medical care has nothing to do with the Bush deficits, and that's what we're debating here.
If we're going to make stuff up, let's imagine what might have happened if we had never gone to Iraq. Maybe Muslim terrorists flock here instead of flocking to Iraq, and we have to deal with follow-up attacks after 9/11. Maybe we end up with 100,000 double amputees instead of 6,000. Maybe the feared 'enemy of my enemy' alliance is formed between Saddam and Muslim terrorists, and al Qaeda-types get access to Saddam's advanced weapons research. I suppose some conservative could come up with a 'study' to show that the Bush policies actually saved us $10 trillion, leaving us $4 trillion ahead of the $6 trillion number that someone made up. Conservatives don't normally do those kinds of 'studies' though.
A review of the facts show that most of the deficits during that time was due to lower revenue from the financial crisis. What did Obama do to bring on the crisis?
In 2008 we had a 455 billion dollar deficit in 2013 we have a 900 billion dollar deficit Budget Deficit History
So we have 3.4 trillion dollars more revenue then we had in 2008 and 500 billion dollar bigger deficit. How has creating more revenue lowered our deficit?
Yes, it's terribly immoral for voters to vote for the party that promises to make their lives better -- instead of the other party that wants to lower the taxes of billionaires.
I have to ask, because I wouldn't know, but does repeating lies over and over and over like that ever wear on you?
If it were me doing it, I think I'd become awash with shame.
In 2008 we had a 455 billion dollar deficit in 2013 we have a 900 billion dollar deficit Budget Deficit History
So we have 3.4 trillion dollars more revenue then we had in 2008 and 500 billion dollar bigger deficit. How has creating more revenue lowered our deficit?
Your numbers include state and local government. Click on the radio button that says "fed."
I have to ask, because I wouldn't know, but does repeating lies over and over and over like that ever wear on you?
If it were me doing it, I think I'd become awash with shame.
Just wonderin'.
Isn't repeating "Obama is buying votes with gifts" a tired and false narrative?
Really, billionaires aren't shy to use their political muscle and money to have their interests enacted by government. There is no reason the rest shouldn't use our votes to improve our lives too.
Your very first sentence is wrong. Bush didn't "rack up 10 trillion in debt...". If we are to believe your charts, Bush "racked up" ~ 4.3 trillion in debt from 2000-2008.
Further, your interpretation of "annualized growth" is faulty in the context of your intent in this thread.
Total fail of a thread.
.... Bush didn't leave office until 2009.
So are you and others saying Bush didn't cut revenue through tax cuts and increase spending through wars, Medicare expansion, tarp, and enlarging the fed govt (dept homeland security)?
Do you realize none of the presidents since the great depression had an economic crisis as severe or far reaching as the one we are crawling out of?
Do you not understand in such conditions revenue will take a big hit while social net spending will greatly increase. The deficit is certainly worrisome, but as predicted as the economy improves it will shrink.
This is all well and good, and the graphs you provided are definately informative and I'll look them over. Obviously NO presidency exists in a vacuum. All presidents inherit issues and policies that were in place from previous administrations. That's part of the job and should be expected. Any presidents promises should be made knowing you'll have to deal with the fallout, good or bad, from the previous presidency. Eventually, you have to take ownership of the problems just like any corporate president or business owner would have to. This blaming Bush thing is getting old. He added lots of debt, that's not a good thing and I'll be the first one to say so.....but he's not the president anymore (6 years out of office now) so we should stop whining and wringing our hands and move forward. Understanding the failures and why they happened of the previous administrations should be remembered so as not to be repeated, but the pointing fingers thing is gaining us nothing and seems counterproductive to me. That damn FDR, if only he had done this and not that...blah, blah, blah. Seems stupid doesn't it ?
However, the question remains from my original comment for someone to show me how using the chart the OP provided, you could assert that Bush II added 10 trillion of new debt to the existing debt that existed when he took office. We were told by the OP that Bush II added 10 trillion of debt and the chart does not support his/her assertions the way I read it. It was also mentioned that only liberals deal in fact and that others deal in fallacy.....I'm just trying to figure out how you can look at the OP's data and come up with his/her conclusion.
So.....someone please "splain" to me how this chart can be interpreted to show that Bush II added 10 trillion in new debt to the debt that existed when he took office. I am waiting to be educated as to how to read this chart....assuming it's accurate in what it shows.
Should be imple enough to do assumning the OP was dealing with hard facts and not fallacies....I gather from many of the comments only conservatives do that.....certainly not liberals. Help me out !
I dont know about the exact numbers, but Bush's policies left us with a lot of debt that doesn't disappear when he left office. And the economic crisis left with a lot of debt and will continue to add to it while the economy slowly improves.
Your source, "Factcheck.org" is a left wing outfit which distributes this kind of propaganda for purposes of discrediting conservatives and conservative ideas.
The Domain is registered by Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania
Can you post some actual (facts) to show why "Factcheck.org" can't be trusted?
Its actually sources connected to Fox news that can't be trusted (I will show/explain why.)
The following link is from NASA's official website. NASA says 97% of all climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
I know conservatives will say we can not trust the mediamatters source above. Can you please explain with (facts) why mediamatters is a untrustworthy source?
All of you conservatives should watch the following Australian documentary (the corporate CEO's who fund and control Fox news are manipulating the hell out of you people.)
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.
