Tracking the National Debt

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by David2004, Sep 10, 2004.

  1. David2004
    Offline

    David2004 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    227
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +25
    The last American President to leave office with the National Federal Debt {NFD} under a trillion dollars was President Jimmy Carter in 1981.

    · 1976- 1980 President Carter added approximately 277 billion dollars over his four-year term. When he left office the (NFD} was approximately 930 billion dollars.
    · 1980- 1988 President Reagan takes the honor for breaking into the trillions. The born again conservatives took the {NFD} from 930 billion to 2.6 trillion dollars in eight years this is an increase of 1.6 trillion dollars. Almost tripling the {NFD}.
    · 1988- 1992 President George H. Bush took the {NFD} from 2.6 trillion dollars to 4 trillion dollars in four years. This is an increase of 1.4 trillion dollars almost the same over President Reagan eight year term.
    · 1992-2000 President Clinton started off with the {NFD} at 4 trillion dollar and over eight years grew to 5.6 trillion dollars. This was an increase of 1.6 trillion dollars about the same as under President Reagan over the same period of time.
    · 2000-? President George W. Bush started off the {NFD} at 5.6 trillion dollar with the {NFD} at 7.3 now and projected to be 7.6 by the end of President Bush?s first term. This is a two trillion dollar increase in four years. This is 400 billion dollars more than President Reagan and President Clinton during their eight-year terms.

    From 1980 when the {NDF} was just under a trillion dollar to September 2004 the {NFD} is 7.3 trillion dollars. The Republicans controlled the White House sixteen years of the last twenty-four years running the {NFD} up approximately 5 trillion dollars while the Democrats controlling the White House for eight year added 1.6 trillion dollars. President Clinton is the only President during this period to have a year with balance federal budget with a surplus not adding to the National Federal Debt.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    President Bush daily calls his economic policies succesful... Imagine if he'd kept the surplus, kept people's health care, and kept 1 million jobs. What would one call that?
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,526
    Thanks Received:
    8,157
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,145
    The government isnt supposed to keep Surpluses. They are either supposed to be Spent or given back to the people. The President made the right choice.

    Our unemployment rate is lower than it was during the Clinton administration. Why you keep trying to harp on these phantom 1 million jobs lost when the numbers dont support your conclusion is beyond me.

    As for health care, no one really cares about socialized health care. Youd think Democrats would realize that by now.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

    Bush has a net gain in jobs over the past 4 years. Not that a president is directly responsible for any job gained or lost. He can only cut the taxes so that employers can higher more people. Its upon the employers and the employees to do the work.
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Unfortunately, old son, the unemploymernt numbers don't show the number of people who have stopped looking for work because they can't find any. Nor do those figures count the underemployed. Nor do they take into account the fact that a disproportionate number of the new jobs created under Dubbyuh's administration pay an average of $9,000 less than the jobs they replace. Oh, and let's not forget...the poverty rate has risen for the last three years in a row and the number of folks who are uninsured has grown by some 5 million plus over the same period.

    Yessiree! With friends like the Bush administration American workers don't need any enemies!
     
  6. ajwps
    Offline

    ajwps Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,302
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +46
    I would call that 20 million dead Americans with no New York, Los Angeles or Chicago buildings standing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. ajwps
    Offline

    ajwps Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,302
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ratings:
    +46
    KEEPING government surplus is a fraud. Taking money out of the system and keeping it in a national treasury is tantamount to theft from every working man and woman in the USA.

    The US government politicians do not make a good G-d that have the right to 'giveth and taketh away.' The US national debt is meaningless in the fact that the (Gross Domestic Product) in relation to the national debt is greater than it has been in many years.

    Take a look at the following Goldman Sachs graph of GDP. Anyone who understands economics understands that the policies of the government is like the waves in the ocean. The effect of the wave does not come instantaneously but starts low and rises to a crest only after those policies have time to take effect.

    The Reagan years like the John Kennedy years lowered taxes and instituted policies that were good for the people of the United States instead of hoarding wealth in the US Treasury coffers. Those policies caused a rise in GDP over the period of the following years. The graph below illustrates the Reagan policies taking effect in the Clinton years in a growing crest and following Clintons tax and spend years demonstrating a dramatic drop at the end of his eight years. Now even in only 3 1/2 years of GSW, the crest has risen back to the previous highs.

    The jobs are now slowly recovering from Clinton's high taxes and spending, but not spending on the public sector which resulted in the tremendous loss of jobs and production from Clinton taking money out of the private sector. Without money in the hands of the US population, spending is reduced, companies have less real income and must downsize jobs resulting in a downward spiral. When US Treasury uses it's surpluses to create industry and business to increase their incomes, jobs are created and more people have disposable income. With the rise in jobs and production of goods and services in the US, the tax base rises bringing in even more trillions to the government treasury.

    The democrats love to have those surpluses to use as handouts in exchange for votes instead of creating jobs so that Americans can keep self-respect and independence from being used as welfare recepients who must vote to keep a few dollars from the government give-away programs.

    If John Kerry and the democrats win this next election, the greatest economic depression in history will result. These effects have been demonstrated time and time again to the consternation of the democratic party.


    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +490
    So tell me...what happens to these people that stop looking for jobs? Do they start living on their good looks? After all, their unemployment benefits don't last indefinitely!

    Underemployed --- you mean like most government employees?

    Fact .... most people that are in the lowest 25% of earners today will be in the upper 50% of earners within 10-15 years. Why? Simple...many of those people are in their teens or in their twenties, so they are just entering the workforce at starting salaries. Also, many people work part time (e.g. retirees and new mothers), so many of the people who earn "starvation wages" are actually older people with hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets.

    Since inflation is so low, wages do not need to rise. In fact the standard of living has increased over the past twenty years, thanks to technology. The cost of many things over the past twenty years has actually decreased in inflation adjusted dollars

    By the way ... one way to increase employment is to eliminate the minimum wage. If you do that, employers will pay their workers what the market will bear, not what the government tells them to. Eventually, with competition, the number of jobs will increase.

    As for uninsured people ---- why are they uninsured? Ask John Edwards, that litigious SOB and his parasitic lawyer buddies are partly responsible for that phenonmenon..... And guess who the Trial Lawyers Association is throwing its dollars and its support to this election year? 1st Hint: the same party they always do! 2nd Hint: Starts with a "D".

    Fact....approximately 200 Billion dollars was awarded last year in lawsuits...that means, for a 15 trillion dollar economy, there is effectively a 1.5% lawyer tax on everything you buy....

    Add to that taxes, FICA, medicare, state and local taxes ..... do you wonder why jobs are going overseas? Do you wonder why the cost of healthcare is rising at a rate many times higher than inflation? Do you wonder why a lot of doctors are either moving their practices or getting out of medicine entirely? I don't.

    Definition of insanity: doing something 1000 times and expecting a different result on the 1001st try.

    Definition of insanity - Democrat Style: Spending over 5 trillion dollars and 40 years in the war on poverty, accomplishing little to no results, then believing that the solution to it all is more government, more taxation and more regulation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,526
    Thanks Received:
    8,157
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,145
    Tell me. why exactly would i be worried about people who refuse to look for work? I mean if they arent looking what right do they have to complain when they dont have one?

    Regardless i dont think your so called nonworkers exist. Because if they did they would be starving. And i dont know anyone w ho would rather starve than work.
     

Share This Page