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

[Artevelde]

Well, actually in january 2001 (when Clinton left office) the total national debt in absolute terms was moderately higher (5,7 trillion vs 4,2 trillion) then in january 1993 (when Clinton took office). As a percentage of tha GDP it had declined somewhat from 66,2% to 57,3%.
In the 8 years of George W. Bush the national debt rose 4,9 trillion in absolute terms (to 10,6 trillion). As a percentage of GDP it rose in those 8 years from 57,3% to 73,8% (+ 16,5 percentage points).
In the less than 4 years of Obama the national debt has risen 5,4 trillion in absolute terms (to 16 trillion) and is now above 100% as a percentage of GDP (101,8%).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since 1946 democrats have controlled the government in part or whole for 60+ years
they dropped the A-bomb

They have expanded the welfare system to a point that it makes for a comfortable life style.
A democrat signed the assault weapons ban
A democrats signed NAFTA
A democrat took money from social security to make it look like there was a surpplus
A democrat gave us a recession
A democrat lied his way to election but continued Bush policy
A democrat extended and expand portions of the Patriot act
A democrat signed into law the NDAA 2012 indefinite detention
A democrat gave aid to Americas enemy in Libya
A democrat by passed congress and gave amnesty to illegals
A democrat refused to assist border states with illegals crossing the border

Record number of Americans on food stamps 64 million last checked

42 straight months of Unemployment 8% or higher

Americas AAA credit rating DOWN GRADED

Even though the recession was over in 2009 things have not gotten better in the industry's that drive the economy Manufacturing and Construction

I haven't seen gas below 3.00 a gallon in North Carolina since obama's first year in office.

American tax payers lost money on a democrats bailout to unions and CEO'S that supported Democrats
American tax payer lost money on bankrupt green energy company's
A democrat allowed firearms into the hands of Mexican terrorists
A democrat did back door deals to create the biggest tax on the middle class in Americas history called obamatax.

you forgot

A Democrat Balanced the Budget!


(without a single Republican vote, proving once and for all where the problem lies)

When? What is a balanced Budget to democrats anyway since they shot down an amendment to have a balanced budget

 

[expat_panama]

...less than 4 years of Obama the national debt has risen 5,4 trillion...

It's a numbers thing.

Some people work with numbers and others just like to quarrel.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

...less than 4 years of Obama the national debt has risen 5,4 trillion...

It's a numbers thing.

Some people work with numbers and others just like to quarrel.

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.

 

[GreatDay]

...less than 4 years of Obama the national debt has risen 5,4 trillion...

It's a numbers thing.

Some people work with numbers and others just like to quarrel.

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's a numbers thing.

Some people work with numbers and others just like to quarrel.

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

 

[expat_panama]

...Your chart does show how much better revenue grew after a tax increase than it did after a cut...

No, it doesn't.

Now it does.

 

[GreatDay]

...Your chart does show how much better revenue grew after a tax increase than it did after a cut...

No, it doesn't.

Now it does.

So your point is that even with huge revenue gains Bush still couldn't do what Clinton did and Clinton was fighting a "world's largest tax increase" and all that comes with that?

Damn Republicans really suck.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just assume this never happened

 

[Freemason9]

Since 1946 democrats have controlled the government in part or whole for 60+ years
they dropped the A-bomb

They have expanded the welfare system to a point that it makes for a comfortable life style.
A democrat signed the assault weapons ban
A democrats signed NAFTA
A democrat took money from social security to make it look like there was a surpplus
A democrat gave us a recession
A democrat lied his way to election but continued Bush policy
A democrat extended and expand portions of the Patriot act
A democrat signed into law the NDAA 2012 indefinite detention
A democrat gave aid to Americas enemy in Libya
A democrat by passed congress and gave amnesty to illegals
A democrat refused to assist border states with illegals crossing the border

Record number of Americans on food stamps 64 million last checked

42 straight months of Unemployment 8% or higher

Americas AAA credit rating DOWN GRADED

Even though the recession was over in 2009 things have not gotten better in the industry's that drive the economy Manufacturing and Construction

I haven't seen gas below 3.00 a gallon in North Carolina since obama's first year in office.

American tax payers lost money on a democrats bailout to unions and CEO'S that supported Democrats
American tax payer lost money on bankrupt green energy company's
A democrat allowed firearms into the hands of Mexican terrorists
A democrat did back door deals to create the biggest tax on the middle class in Americas history called obamatax.

Do you honestly think that a Republican president would right all these wrongs? Because I can personally guarantee you that won't happen.

 

[Moonglow]

When Oblama took office UE was already above 7%

 

[GreatDay]

Since 1946 democrats have controlled the government in part or whole for 60+ years
they dropped the A-bomb

They have expanded the welfare system to a point that it makes for a comfortable life style.
A democrat signed the assault weapons ban
A democrats signed NAFTA
A democrat took money from social security to make it look like there was a surpplus
A democrat gave us a recession
A democrat lied his way to election but continued Bush policy
A democrat extended and expand portions of the Patriot act
A democrat signed into law the NDAA 2012 indefinite detention
A democrat gave aid to Americas enemy in Libya
A democrat by passed congress and gave amnesty to illegals
A democrat refused to assist border states with illegals crossing the border

Record number of Americans on food stamps 64 million last checked

42 straight months of Unemployment 8% or higher

Americas AAA credit rating DOWN GRADED

Even though the recession was over in 2009 things have not gotten better in the industry's that drive the economy Manufacturing and Construction

I haven't seen gas below 3.00 a gallon in North Carolina since obama's first year in office.

American tax payers lost money on a democrats bailout to unions and CEO'S that supported Democrats
American tax payer lost money on bankrupt green energy company's
A democrat allowed firearms into the hands of Mexican terrorists
A democrat did back door deals to create the biggest tax on the middle class in Americas history called obamatax.

you forgot

A Democrat Balanced the Budget!


(without a single Republican vote, proving once and for all where the problem lies)

When? What is a balanced Budget to democrats anyway since they shot down an amendment to have a balanced budget

(These short buss riders just can't do or remember anything.)

Here's an 18 month period for you, you can see the total debt was 100 billion less at the end of the 18 months, but Bush took care of all that before we "reported" a surplus that would have looked bad, just like the Wall Street boys taking down their "debt clock" when it started to go backwards.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson asked BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts revenue increased by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History

individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006



Forbes: "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks," co-authored with her husband, fellow University of California, Berkeley, economist David Romer.
In their article, they find that "tax increases are highly contractionary" and that tax cuts are highly expansionary. Otherwise-careful economists Greg Mankiw of Harvard and Lawrence Lindsey of the American Enterprise Institute have run with this result, as they should,

NYSUN: It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Why, Robert Bartley couldn't have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to "finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it," and of the need to "invest in our infrastructure" and in "our schools."

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn't let the point go. "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to "a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to."

Mr. Gibson tried the same question, more or less, on Senator Clinton. She, at least, disavowed raising the capital gains rate above 20%, ruling out a return to the 28% rate contemplated by Mr. Obama. But when Mr. Gibson pressed her on why she would raise it at all, she went into lunk-headed, static analysis mode, displaying a lack of understanding as severe as that afflicting her rival. "You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is," she said.

Dwyer,Washington Times: By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years



http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

 

[tjvh]

Again... The pesky little detail which railroads this entire thread... 9/11.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again... The pesky little detail which railroads this entire thread... 9/11.

yes, the idea that you can take money from productive people, transfer it to bureaucrats, and not harm the economy is so stupid as to be perfectly liberal.

 

[uscitizen]

U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

And then we got attacked.

We lost 5 ,000 people and a few buildings and it crashed our economy?
That is pathetic.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson asked BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts revenue increased by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History

individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006



Forbes: "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks," co-authored with her husband, fellow University of California, Berkeley, economist David Romer.
In their article, they find that "tax increases are highly contractionary" and that tax cuts are highly expansionary. Otherwise-careful economists Greg Mankiw of Harvard and Lawrence Lindsey of the American Enterprise Institute have run with this result, as they should,

NYSUN: It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Why, Robert Bartley couldn't have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to "finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it," and of the need to "invest in our infrastructure" and in "our schools."

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn't let the point go. "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to "a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to."

Mr. Gibson tried the same question, more or less, on Senator Clinton. She, at least, disavowed raising the capital gains rate above 20%, ruling out a return to the 28% rate contemplated by Mr. Obama. But when Mr. Gibson pressed her on why she would raise it at all, she went into lunk-headed, static analysis mode, displaying a lack of understanding as severe as that afflicting her rival. "You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is," she said.

Dwyer,Washington Times: By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years



http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

All that additional revenue and Bush and the republican controlled congress still overspent like drunken sailors...

 

[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"?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson asked BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts revenue increased by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History

individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006



Forbes: "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks," co-authored with her husband, fellow University of California, Berkeley, economist David Romer.
In their article, they find that "tax increases are highly contractionary" and that tax cuts are highly expansionary. Otherwise-careful economists Greg Mankiw of Harvard and Lawrence Lindsey of the American Enterprise Institute have run with this result, as they should,

NYSUN: It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Why, Robert Bartley couldn't have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to "finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it," and of the need to "invest in our infrastructure" and in "our schools."

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn't let the point go. "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to "a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to."

Mr. Gibson tried the same question, more or less, on Senator Clinton. She, at least, disavowed raising the capital gains rate above 20%, ruling out a return to the 28% rate contemplated by Mr. Obama. But when Mr. Gibson pressed her on why she would raise it at all, she went into lunk-headed, static analysis mode, displaying a lack of understanding as severe as that afflicting her rival. "You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is," she said.

Dwyer,Washington Times: By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years



http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough?

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

All that additional revenue and Bush and the republican controlled congress still overspent like drunken sailors...

So what??? They were not Tea Party Republicans, Jeffersonian Republicans, Norquist Republicans, libertarian Republicans, or conservative Republicans.

 

[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.