Back in 2000 in debt was going down; then we elected a Republican.

[GreatDay]

U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

We had a Republican President who added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years.
And that was way too much debt.
So then we had a Democrat President who added $5.4 trillion to the debt in 3.5 years.
And liberals think that's an improvement that deserves a second term.

Who is this "Republican President" you speak of? I saw the GOP convention it was as if it were just born, no Bush, no McCain, no Palin the Ds had Clinton, Kerry they don't seem to be afraid to mention that they have been in office before.

Reagan/Bush quad-tripled the debt, then Bush double it, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama came in, (he followed a Republican) when Bush came in we had balanced budget and was creating about 250,000 jobs a month, I know actually looking at reality is counter to conservatives core priceless, but you did ask.

 

[edthecynic]

OH another their was a surplus in 96 post. Sure we had a surplus that was easy to do transfer money fron the democrats reserve bank Social Security Administration, and there you have your surplus Democrats have plenty of money when they do that.

So you completely forget about the summer of 2001 when every Republican in Washington was running around talking about how Washington was talking in too much money? What makes you think they have changed in their opinion in any way? You say cut spending to balance but I know that as soon as we do you will cut taxes to get the debt back like the GOP did before you can go pull that one on Charlie Brown, Lucy



“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”


“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

Your chart does show how much better revenue grew after a tax increase than it did after a cut, something cons are always lying about.

There was no surplus, Clinton transferred funds from SSA the the official reserve bank of the Democrats.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

So you are essentially saying the Clinton surplus is as mythical as Bush's $161 billion fiscal 2007 deficit after transferring $360 billion from SSA to the official reserve bank of the Republicans.

 

[expat_panama]

...the republican controlled congress still overspent...

We're together on the fact that Congress controls the budget. Looking at the facts on how political parties relate to spending and debt tells us that--

--ragging on Republican spending is dumb.

 

[uscitizen]

The truth is somewhere in between

No Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Balanced Federal Budget in 40 Years; No Republican President Has Balanced Federal Budget in 50 Years | cnsnews.com

You left out that no republican led congress in conjunction with a republican president has not balanced the budget in how long?

 

[uscitizen]

...the republican controlled congress still overspent...

We're together on the fact that Congress controls the budget. Looking at the facts on how political parties relate to spending and debt tells us that--

--ragging on Republican spending is dumb.

NO it is not dumb when they CLAIM to pe the party for smaller govt and fiscal responsibility.
The dems do not have those items as party planks.

 

[Avorysuds]

what a stupid post by the OP... Trollin the nets I see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

We had a Republican President who added $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years.
And that was way too much debt.
So then we had a Democrat President who added $5.4 trillion to the debt in 3.5 years.
And liberals think that's an improvement that deserves a second term.

Who is this "Republican President" you speak of? I saw the GOP convention it was as if it were just born, no Bush, no McCain, no Palin the Ds had Clinton, Kerry they don't seem to be afraid to mention that they have been in office before.

Reagan/Bush quad-tripled the debt, then Bush double it, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama came in, (he followed a Republican) when Bush came in we had balanced budget and was creating about 250,000 jobs a month, I know actually looking at reality is counter to conservatives core priceless, but you did ask.

Who is this "Republican President" you speak of?

Probably the same one you spoke of.
The same one who added less to the debt in 8 years than Obama did in 3.5 years.

 

[expat_panama]

...

--ragging on Republican spending is dumb.

NO it is not dumb when they CLAIM to pe the party for smaller govt and fiscal responsibility. The dems do not have those items as party planks.

Absolutely, that's what we're talking about. We look at historical public debt along with which party controls congress and we see how--

--Democrat control comes with big debts while Republican leadership pays off the debts.



We all talking about the same thing here?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...

--ragging on Republican spending is dumb.

NO it is not dumb when they CLAIM to pe the party for smaller govt and fiscal responsibility. The dems do not have those items as party planks.

Absolutely, that's what we're talking about. We look at historical public debt along with which party controls congress and we see how--

--Democrat control comes with big debts while Republican leadership pays off the debts.



We all talking about the same thing here?

Yes, that with enough Republicans the Balanced Budget Amendment would have passed and today the debt would be $0 dollars, not $16trillion.

Demcrats have all 30 BBA's since Jefferson's first.

 

[GreatDay]

NO it is not dumb when they CLAIM to pe the party for smaller govt and fiscal responsibility. The dems do not have those items as party planks.

Absolutely, that's what we're talking about. We look at historical public debt along with which party controls congress and we see how--

--Democrat control comes with big debts while Republican leadership pays off the debts.



We all talking about the same thing here?

Yes, that with enough Republicans the Balanced Budget Amendment would have passed and today the debt would be $0 dollars, not $16trillion.

Demcrats have all 30 BBA's since Jefferson's first.

none of your charts address the core problem that even if we do balance the budget, no Republican has pledged that they would not just cut taxes and start it all over again. As they did in 2001. Still wondering if you have any ideal why Greenspan got it so wrong?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

none of your charts address the core problem that even if we do balance the budget, no Republican has pledged that they would not just cut taxes and start it all over again.

yes Republicans want to cut taxes and so cut government, as the Constitution intended. How is freedom from big liberal government a problem when it is the basic principle of our country?

As they did in 2001. Still wondering if you have any ideal why Greenspan got it so wrong?

same reason why everyone got it so wrong!. Its too complicated for any of us to understand, let along predict the future..

 

[GreatDay]

none of your charts address the core problem that even if we do balance the budget, no Republican has pledged that they would not just cut taxes and start it all over again.

yes Republicans want to cut taxes and so cut government, as the Constitution intended. How is freedom from big liberal government a problem when it is the basic principle of our country?

As they did in 2001. Still wondering if you have any ideal why Greenspan got it so wrong?

same reason why everyone got it so wrong!. Its too complicated for us all to understand.

How can government be small if it has an agent in every bedroom and every doctor's office? Tell me when a Republican suggested anything to reduce the number of people we have in prison? Or the size of our military? We have the largest military and smallest public health care services in NATO. I think Republican want a large powerful government imposing the Kings will, not collecting taxes from the wealthy but from that 47% of peasants who should live only for the King. Look at the entitlement in this room:


SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters | Mother Jones

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How can government be small if it has an agent in every bedroom and every doctor's office?

IF this is true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away once again.

Tell me when a Republican suggested anything to reduce the number of people we have in prison?

too stupid!! In the Republican 1950's few were in prison. A return to Republican family religious economic values would empty the prisons. Blacks are most of the prisoners and they have been most subjected to liberal entitlement values.

Or the size of our military? We have the largest military

dear, we are policeman to the world and don't have a military big enough to take even Afghanistan

and smallest public health care services in NATO.

too stupid of course!!! We have the largest population in NATO and spend 3 times percapita on health care what Europe does, and, most of it is spent or controlled by government

I think Republican want a large powerful government imposing the Kings will, not collecting taxes from the wealthy

too stupid of course. The top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes and liberals only talk about whether they pay their fair share.

Actually it Grover Norquist, a Republican, who wants the tax pledge which says no new taxes in order to shrink government. Democrats are 100% opposed as they have been 100% opposed to each of the 30 Balanced Budget Amendments Republicans have proposed since Jefferson's first. Can you guess which party always wants to increase the debt ceiling and which opposes?


See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow to the point of extreme willfull stupidity.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03



Can you point out which year it was that the debt was "going down"?

??

 

[GreatDay]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03



Can you point out which year it was that the debt was "going down"?

??

The debt went down from Jan 01, 2000 to Jan 01, 2001 total debt went down by about 110 billion dollars over that time it had not done that before the Democrats passed the omnibus bill of 1993 without a single Republican vote and the GOP put an end to the balanced budget as soon as they could. plug in the dates and check for yourself.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[GreatDay]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03



Can you point out which year it was that the debt was "going down"?

jan 01 200 to jan 01 2001, down by about 110 billion,

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Could you be any more full of shit? Or are you just really, really bad with numbers?

 

[Wry Catcher]

U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

And then we got attacked.

First Bush cut taxes, then we got attacked and then he cut taxes again and invaded and occupied Iraq, a nation which had NOTHING to do with the attack on Sept. 11, 2001. And then, asleep on duty, he and the Republican Congress allowed Wall Street to run amok (for the historical revisionists a note: most of us know that the D's didn't hold the leadership in Congress until January 2007 after the house of cards the GOP built began to fall.

 

[Wry Catcher]

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

?

The obvious answer to your question is quite simple. On 9/30/2009 our economy was STILL functioning on the Bush Administration's Budget. Even if you wish to blame the Democrats in Congress, keep in mind they didn't hold the leadership until January 2007. Bush still had the power of veto and could have acted. In fact, much of his spending on the war of choice in Iraq was off budget yet contributed to the debt.

Finally, the debt will continue to grow since interest on the money spent by Bush and the Republican Congress remains outstanding to this day.