Republican Governor John Kasich Says GOP To Blame For Debt Crisis

[zeke]

Both parties are to blame. But obviously, the Communist Organizer in there now is the most to blame.

I am sure that IF a Republican were to win the WH and the deficit increase, you will blame the newly elected President for the increase in debt. No matter how or why it increases, it will be the new Republican Presidents fault. Right?

 

[paulitician]

Both Bush and Obama have saddled the kids with a pretty dark future. But i'm pretty sure they don't care. They'll go on living the royalty dream. A $Million a speech and endless rounds of golf to be played. It's good to be King.

 

[paulitician]

Both parties are to blame. But obviously, the Communist Organizer in there now is the most to blame.

I am sure that IF a Republican were to win the WH and the deficit increase, you will blame the newly elected President for the increase in debt. No matter how or why it increases, it will be the new Republican Presidents fault. Right?

Yes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush left us with a $10.6 Trillion debt which is actually $15.6 Trillion in spending since he started out with a $5 Trillion surplus.

Republicans have always been the big government spenders.

10.6 is actually 15.6? Is this the new Core Curriculum math?
Bush left office with the debt at 10T. Obama still has 2 years to go and it's already 18T. Facts are just not kind to Democrats.

I'd love to see where you got your numbers Rabbi.
According to the US Treasury
On October 1st 2001, which is the first day of GWB's first fiscal year the debt stood at-
5,806,151,389,190.21
Om October 1st 2009, which is the first day of Obama's first fiscal budget the debt was at-11,909,829,003,511.75
Debt to the Penny Daily History Search Application

Not to be ignored, there was the Obama stimulus of $792 billion that was legislated in early 2009. The stimulus was to be dispersed over a set number of years and only what was spent goes against each fiscal year. According to the legislation 24% of the stimulus was too be spent during Bush's last fiscal year. So it would be fair not to count the ARRA money spent during Bush's last fiscal year against Bush. 24% of $792 billion is 190.080 billion dollars that should be deducted from Bush's total, which brings Bush's total debt down to $5.913.598 trillion. So under W, the National Debt basically doubled.
Somebody brought up some kind of fiscal surplus, there was never anything close to any kind of surplus.
Below is a chart of how much of the stimulus was to be spent according to the legislation.
How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent Rutledge Capital
View attachment 36260

So I make a claim about the debt the day Bush left office and the debt as it stands today and you question it on the basis od the debt the day Bush came into office (or started his fiscal year) and the day Obama started his.
You compare oranges to orangutangs and then wonder why I ridicule you.

You ridicule me because your are stupid. You just can't understand facts because you live your sorry life by biased talking points/opinions.
I supply facts with links, you supply nothing as usual.
What you said was the National Debt when Bush left office is total bullshit. You are off by about $1.7 trillion. What counts against all presidents is what the National Debt was during their fiscal years. That has been the measuring stick used by economist. Plus, I deducted ARRA spent during the last fiscal year of Bush's, because that is the honest thing to do.
Let me know when you want to use facts instead of your opinion

You used no facts. You picked the standards you wanted.
Is the debt higher today or lower than when Bush left office, or at any time since?

 

[Lakhota]

Bush debt didn't stop when he left office (two wars and tax cuts): So, how much debt has Obama created that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions and policies? I've asked this question many times - but NaziCons have yet to factually answer it.

David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."

10 Republican Lies About The Bush Tax Cuts

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huff post analysis...read with caution.

Did Huffpo make up what Kasich is quoted saying?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why didn't Bush pay for his two wars?

What is the common sense behind NOT paying for wars?

 

[Lakhota]

Bush Breaks With 140 Years of History in Plan for Wartime Tax Cut

The proposal commits Bush to a goal unprecedented in U.S. history: cutting taxes in wartime.

With this push to slash taxes during wartime, Bush broke from 140 years of history under presidents of both parties. In every major conflict the United States has fought since the Civil War (and some minor ones), Washington has raised taxes to pay for the war.

More: Bush Breaks With 140 Years of History in Plan for Wartime Tax Cut - Los Angeles Times

Bush was a fool.

 

[rdean]

Bush debt didn't stop when he left office (two wars and tax cuts): So, how much debt has Obama created that wasn't a direct or indirect result of Bush actions and policies? I've asked this question many times - but NaziCons have yet to factually answer it.

David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." The next day, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous."

10 Republican Lies About The Bush Tax Cuts

Every president inherits things from previous presidents.
THis has already been debunked as an argument.
Face it, Obama is the biggest spender literally in the world.

Yea, but when was the last time a president inherited the slop given to Obama?

 

[kiwiman127]

Bush left us with a $10.6 Trillion debt which is actually $15.6 Trillion in spending since he started out with a $5 Trillion surplus.

Republicans have always been the big government spenders.

10.6 is actually 15.6? Is this the new Core Curriculum math?
Bush left office with the debt at 10T. Obama still has 2 years to go and it's already 18T. Facts are just not kind to Democrats.

I'd love to see where you got your numbers Rabbi.
According to the US Treasury
On October 1st 2001, which is the first day of GWB's first fiscal year the debt stood at-
5,806,151,389,190.21
Om October 1st 2009, which is the first day of Obama's first fiscal budget the debt was at-11,909,829,003,511.75
Debt to the Penny Daily History Search Application

Not to be ignored, there was the Obama stimulus of $792 billion that was legislated in early 2009. The stimulus was to be dispersed over a set number of years and only what was spent goes against each fiscal year. According to the legislation 24% of the stimulus was too be spent during Bush's last fiscal year. So it would be fair not to count the ARRA money spent during Bush's last fiscal year against Bush. 24% of $792 billion is 190.080 billion dollars that should be deducted from Bush's total, which brings Bush's total debt down to $5.913.598 trillion. So under W, the National Debt basically doubled.
Somebody brought up some kind of fiscal surplus, there was never anything close to any kind of surplus.
Below is a chart of how much of the stimulus was to be spent according to the legislation.
How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent Rutledge Capital
View attachment 36260

So I make a claim about the debt the day Bush left office and the debt as it stands today and you question it on the basis od the debt the day Bush came into office (or started his fiscal year) and the day Obama started his.
You compare oranges to orangutangs and then wonder why I ridicule you.

You ridicule me because your are stupid. You just can't understand facts because you live your sorry life by biased talking points/opinions.
I supply facts with links, you supply nothing as usual.
What you said was the National Debt when Bush left office is total bullshit. You are off by about $1.7 trillion. What counts against all presidents is what the National Debt was during their fiscal years. That has been the measuring stick used by economist. Plus, I deducted ARRA spent during the last fiscal year of Bush's, because that is the honest thing to do.
Let me know when you want to use facts instead of your opinion

You used no facts. You picked the standards you wanted.
Is the debt higher today or lower than when Bush left office, or at any time since?

Everything I used were facts and I supplied the links too.
You couldn't refute the facts and they proved you're full of shit. But about everybody knows all about your credibility. You spew your opinion that are usually based on talking points and that's it.
There are some very good conservative posters on USMB and you aren't one of them, it's not even close.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush Breaks With 140 Years of History in Plan for Wartime Tax Cut

The proposal commits Bush to a goal unprecedented in U.S. history: cutting taxes in wartime.

With this push to slash taxes during wartime, Bush broke from 140 years of history under presidents of both parties. In every major conflict the United States has fought since the Civil War (and some minor ones), Washington has raised taxes to pay for the war.

More: Bush Breaks With 140 Years of History in Plan for Wartime Tax Cut - Los Angeles Times

Bush was a fool.

Bush's War Sale...

Buy one, Get one Free!

 

[The Rabbi]

10.6 is actually 15.6? Is this the new Core Curriculum math?
Bush left office with the debt at 10T. Obama still has 2 years to go and it's already 18T. Facts are just not kind to Democrats.

I'd love to see where you got your numbers Rabbi.
According to the US Treasury
On October 1st 2001, which is the first day of GWB's first fiscal year the debt stood at-
5,806,151,389,190.21
Om October 1st 2009, which is the first day of Obama's first fiscal budget the debt was at-11,909,829,003,511.75
Debt to the Penny Daily History Search Application

Not to be ignored, there was the Obama stimulus of $792 billion that was legislated in early 2009. The stimulus was to be dispersed over a set number of years and only what was spent goes against each fiscal year. According to the legislation 24% of the stimulus was too be spent during Bush's last fiscal year. So it would be fair not to count the ARRA money spent during Bush's last fiscal year against Bush. 24% of $792 billion is 190.080 billion dollars that should be deducted from Bush's total, which brings Bush's total debt down to $5.913.598 trillion. So under W, the National Debt basically doubled.
Somebody brought up some kind of fiscal surplus, there was never anything close to any kind of surplus.
Below is a chart of how much of the stimulus was to be spent according to the legislation.
How Much of the Stimulus Money has Already Been Spent Rutledge Capital
View attachment 36260

So I make a claim about the debt the day Bush left office and the debt as it stands today and you question it on the basis od the debt the day Bush came into office (or started his fiscal year) and the day Obama started his.
You compare oranges to orangutangs and then wonder why I ridicule you.

You ridicule me because your are stupid. You just can't understand facts because you live your sorry life by biased talking points/opinions.
I supply facts with links, you supply nothing as usual.
What you said was the National Debt when Bush left office is total bullshit. You are off by about $1.7 trillion. What counts against all presidents is what the National Debt was during their fiscal years. That has been the measuring stick used by economist. Plus, I deducted ARRA spent during the last fiscal year of Bush's, because that is the honest thing to do.
Let me know when you want to use facts instead of your opinion

You used no facts. You picked the standards you wanted.
Is the debt higher today or lower than when Bush left office, or at any time since?

Everything I used were facts and I supplied the links too.
You couldn't refute the facts and they proved you're full of shit. But about everybody knows all about your credibility. You spew your opinion that are usually based on talking points and that's it.
There are some very good conservative posters on USMB and you aren't one of them, it's not even close.

You are an idiot, That much is fact. I described what happened. You ignored it, You also ignored the question of whether debt today is higher or lower than when Obama took office. Wonder why?

 

[g5000]

Huff post analysis...read with caution.

Fox News video in the OP link of Kasich saying exactly what is in the OP.

But you go ahead and do the see-no-evil monkey dance, mm-kay?

 

[deltex1]

Huff post analysis...read with caution.

Fox News video in the OP link of Kasich saying exactly what is in the OP.

But you go ahead and do the see-no-evil monkey dance, mm-kay?

What is said and what is meant are seldom the same thing. Certainly they are seldom if ever interpreted as the same by any observer.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush Breaks With 140 Years of History in Plan for Wartime Tax Cut

The proposal commits Bush to a goal unprecedented in U.S. history: cutting taxes in wartime.

With this push to slash taxes during wartime, Bush broke from 140 years of history under presidents of both parties. In every major conflict the United States has fought since the Civil War (and some minor ones), Washington has raised taxes to pay for the war.

More: Bush Breaks With 140 Years of History in Plan for Wartime Tax Cut - Los Angeles Times

Bush was a fool.

Bush's War Sale...

Buy one, Get one Free!

How did Obama fund his wars?

 

[deltex1]

Is mm-Kay a gay term?

 

[Dana7360]

Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Sunday compared the growing federal debt to the so-called great fire of Rome, appearing to lament what he perceives as a lack of action by policymakers to reduce government spending.

Kasich led the House Budget Committee during the latter years of former President Bill Clinton's administration, when Democrats and Republicans, buoyed by the technology revolution of the 1990s, were able to find agreement on spending issues to produce budget surpluses that in late 2000 led the Clinton administration to project a $5 trillion cumulative budget surplus during the 10 fiscal years beginning in October 2001.

But Washington policymakers, largely led by Republicans, squandered the projected surplus, instead producing annual budget deficits that led to a near doubling of the federal debt, from $5.7 trillion when former President George W. Bush gave his inaugural address in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion when President Barack Obama delivered his address in January 2009.

“They blew a $5 trillion surplus,” Kasich said of Republicans in Washington during the Bush administration. The projected annual surpluses, he said, were “quickly spent, unfortunately by Republicans.”

Two recessions, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush-era tax cuts are largely to blame. The annual growth of the federal debt largely declined during Clinton’s years in office, increased during Bush’s term, and has been steadily falling during Obama’s White House years.

More: John Kasich Compares Federal Debt To A Burning Rome, Says Republicans Share Blame

Kasich is right - but he's probably just pandering for some political presidential traction.

kasich isn't being honest on what generated tax revenues.

It wasn't just the tech industry.

It was increasing taxes on everyone who made 100 thousand dollars a year and above.

That's what generated those tax revenues that were used to pay for our nation's bills and left us with a surplus.

I wish that republicans would be completely honest or if they can't just leave the lies out. He didn't have to say that it was the tech industry that caused the increase of revenues. He could have not said one word about what generated those revenues. But he chose to be less than truthful.

One thing for sure, there has not been a republican president who has written a balanced budget in over 50 years.

All they do is deregulate business, cut taxes, increase spending and take out the nation's credit card to do it. They don't even pay cash for what they buy. So we're left not only with the principle amount but with billions in interest on all that borrowed money.

Clinton put a stop to it but the bush boy followed in the footsteps of reagan and his dad. He out spent them too.

The deficit has been decreased by something like two thirds. Now that we have another democratic president, we are back to heading in the right direction.

I just hope that it doesn't take republicans putting us into 1930s type depression again before Americans wake up.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Sunday compared the growing federal debt to the so-called great fire of Rome, appearing to lament what he perceives as a lack of action by policymakers to reduce government spending.

Kasich led the House Budget Committee during the latter years of former President Bill Clinton's administration, when Democrats and Republicans, buoyed by the technology revolution of the 1990s, were able to find agreement on spending issues to produce budget surpluses that in late 2000 led the Clinton administration to project a $5 trillion cumulative budget surplus during the 10 fiscal years beginning in October 2001.

But Washington policymakers, largely led by Republicans, squandered the projected surplus, instead producing annual budget deficits that led to a near doubling of the federal debt, from $5.7 trillion when former President George W. Bush gave his inaugural address in January 2001 to $10.6 trillion when President Barack Obama delivered his address in January 2009.

“They blew a $5 trillion surplus,” Kasich said of Republicans in Washington during the Bush administration. The projected annual surpluses, he said, were “quickly spent, unfortunately by Republicans.”

Two recessions, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush-era tax cuts are largely to blame. The annual growth of the federal debt largely declined during Clinton’s years in office, increased during Bush’s term, and has been steadily falling during Obama’s White House years.

More: John Kasich Compares Federal Debt To A Burning Rome, Says Republicans Share Blame

Kasich is right - but he's probably just pandering for some political presidential traction.

kasich isn't being honest on what generated tax revenues.

It wasn't just the tech industry.

It was increasing taxes on everyone who made 100 thousand dollars a year and above.

That's what generated those tax revenues that were used to pay for our nation's bills and left us with a surplus.

I wish that republicans would be completely honest or if they can't just leave the lies out. He didn't have to say that it was the tech industry that caused the increase of revenues. He could have not said one word about what generated those revenues. But he chose to be less than truthful.

One thing for sure, there has not been a republican president who has written a balanced budget in over 50 years.

All they do is deregulate business, cut taxes, increase spending and take out the nation's credit card to do it. They don't even pay cash for what they buy. So we're left not only with the principle amount but with billions in interest on all that borrowed money.

Clinton put a stop to it but the bush boy followed in the footsteps of reagan and his dad. He out spent them too.

The deficit has been decreased by something like two thirds. Now that we have another democratic president, we are back to heading in the right direction.

I just hope that it doesn't take republicans putting us into 1930s type depression again before Americans wake up.

As Adlai Stevenson said (many times): "As soon as the Republicans stop lying about me, I will stop telling the truth about them."

 

[Paperman299]

Huff post analysis...read with caution.

Fox News video in the OP link of Kasich saying exactly what is in the OP.

But you go ahead and do the see-no-evil monkey dance, mm-kay?

What is said and what is meant are seldom the same thing. Certainly they are seldom if ever interpreted as the same by any observer.

Just what are words, anyway?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huff post analysis...read with caution.

Fox News video in the OP link of Kasich saying exactly what is in the OP.

But you go ahead and do the see-no-evil monkey dance, mm-kay?

What is said and what is meant are seldom the same thing. Certainly they are seldom if ever interpreted as the same by any observer.

Well then give us your interpretation of what Kasich said.