Debt to Rise to 90% of GDP

[boedicca]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not on the same scale as the Civil War, WWI, or WWII.

Perhaps the War on Terror should be (if we were being honest about the threat) - but as Obama refuses to use the term War on Terror, he doesn't get the budgetary pass of being engaged in a World War.

In any case, the increase in spending is largely non-defense related, so it's specious to argue that it is due to wartime conditions.

 

[Vast LWC]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not on the same scale as the Civil War, WWI, or WWII.

Perhaps the War on Terror should be (if we were being honest about the threat) - but as Obama refuses to use the term War on Terror, he doesn't get the budgetary pass of being engaged in a World War.

In any case, the increase in spending is largely non-defense related, so it's specious to argue that it is due to wartime conditions.

The increase in spending, including the Iraq war and Afghanistan war is actually quite large.

When you add in the increase created by the interest on 12 Trillion Dollars in pre-existing debt, it really starts to add up.

When you say that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't on the scale of WWII, for instance, that is a point...

HOWEVER, it is also a point that we didn't have a massive general increase in production like we did in WWII either, which makes the deficit/GDP ratio worse then, not better.

The thing is, folks on the right were happy to get us into these two wars, but now refuse to admit that they have had any detrimental effect on the debt, even though they lowered taxes and increased spending during that same period.

As for your global war on terror comment, just because Mr Obama doesn't use jingoistic titles for our continuing fight against world criminal terrorism, doesn't mean he hasn't been pressing it, or spending any less on it than his predecessor.

 

[Truthmatters]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not on the same scale as the Civil War, WWI, or WWII.

Perhaps the War on Terror should be (if we were being honest about the threat) - but as Obama refuses to use the term War on Terror, he doesn't get the budgetary pass of being engaged in a World War.

In any case, the increase in spending is largely non-defense related, so it's specious to argue that it is due to wartime conditions.

How long did we fight in WWII?

how long has this war been?

 

[Truthmatters]

The two wars are not what is increasing the deficit, you dim bulb.

So Bush keeping this off budget all those years and then Obama putting the cost into the budget where it should have always been is something you will call Obamas fault?

Then you people wonder why we think your dishonest?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What is wrong with you guys. Obama is working with what he was given. Two wars - three trillion, a drug bill from 2003 that's anywhere from 2 to 15 trillion. It's astounding how you blame Republican mess on him.

The GDP of the US is 14.5 trillion. The GDP of the European Union is over 18 trillion. We could start with pulling our troops and bringing them home. We could rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure.
What are Republican ideas? None. Look at their own party finances. 22 million, then they get 96 million in donations, and they end up with less than 10 million. Yea, so "fiscal".

Did you look at the CBO's numbers for the year 2020....you want to blame that on the last administration, also? Unbelievable

By the way....are those numbers you threw out the RNC's money...or are they tax dollars? hmmmm?

personally, i dont think that we'd be better off with low/no debt because the dollar's strength would price our economy out of existence. for the moment, it strengthens despite domestic asset deflation and huge deficit spending.

but , since this is your pet peeve, couldnt you blame this entire trend on ron reagan? without his conservative revolution, there would be no deficit at all. whether democratic or republican, we are living in a conservative economic era.

you were around back then, would you prefer the economy in the 70s?

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not on the same scale as the Civil War, WWI, or WWII.

Perhaps the War on Terror should be (if we were being honest about the threat) - but as Obama refuses to use the term War on Terror, he doesn't get the budgetary pass of being engaged in a World War.

In any case, the increase in spending is largely non-defense related, so it's specious to argue that it is due to wartime conditions.

The increase in spending, including the Iraq war and Afghanistan war is actually quite large.

When you add in the increase created by the interest on 12 Trillion Dollars in pre-existing debt, it really starts to add up.

When you say that Iraq and Afghanistan aren't on the scale of WWII, for instance, that is a point...

HOWEVER, it is also a point that we didn't have a massive general increase in production like we did in WWII either, which makes the deficit/GDP ratio worse then, not better.

The thing is, folks on the right were happy to get us into these two wars, but now refuse to admit that they have had any detrimental effect on the debt, even though they lowered taxes and increased spending during that same period.

As for your global war on terror comment, just because Mr Obama doesn't use jingoistic titles for our continuing fight against world criminal terrorism, doesn't mean he hasn't been pressing it, or spending any less on it than his predecessor.

Completely factually incorrect and in fact quite a dishonest re-writing of history.

First of all the debt was NOT 12 trillion dollars on January 21st 2009.
Secondly the interest on the entire National Debt hasn't got jack shit to due with the 890 billion dollars Bush spent on the War on Terror.
Third...as I recall...the Democrats voted for every single spending bill related to the war on terror and passed both resolutions authorizing them.

Now...next time try a little honesty when you post instead of the usual biased bullshit that completely negates any credibility you may have.

 

[Truthmatters]

Did you look at the CBO's numbers for the year 2020....you want to blame that on the last administration, also? Unbelievable

By the way....are those numbers you threw out the RNC's money...or are they tax dollars? hmmmm?

personally, i dont think that we'd be better off with low/no debt because the dollar's strength would price our economy out of existence. for the moment, it strengthens despite domestic asset deflation and huge deficit spending.

but , since this is your pet peeve, couldnt you blame this entire trend on ron reagan? without his conservative revolution, there would be no deficit at all. whether democratic or republican, we are living in a conservative economic era.

you were around back then, would you prefer the economy in the 70s?

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

first term the senate was R and in the second term the senate was dem

The house was dem the entire time

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush's two term increase in the national debt. | The Agonist


When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When "W" left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush's presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush's tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

 

[Vast LWC]

Did you look at the CBO's numbers for the year 2020....you want to blame that on the last administration, also? Unbelievable

By the way....are those numbers you threw out the RNC's money...or are they tax dollars? hmmmm?

personally, i dont think that we'd be better off with low/no debt because the dollar's strength would price our economy out of existence. for the moment, it strengthens despite domestic asset deflation and huge deficit spending.

but , since this is your pet peeve, couldnt you blame this entire trend on ron reagan? without his conservative revolution, there would be no deficit at all. whether democratic or republican, we are living in a conservative economic era.

you were around back then, would you prefer the economy in the 70s?

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

Republicans did, about half the time.

Here's a link showing exactly how much was added to the debt, and under whom:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...t-the-fault-is-more-r-than-d.html#post2111666

 

[Vast LWC]

Completely factually incorrect and in fact quite a dishonest re-writing of history.

First of all the debt was NOT 12 trillion dollars on January 21st 2009.

You're right, I rounded up. It was 11.6 Trillion dollars. It is now 12.7 Trillion dollars.

Secondly the interest on the entire National Debt hasn't got jack shit to due with the 890 billion dollars Bush spent on the War on Terror.

No, it doesn't, but it DOES have to do with the current national deficit, and the debt.

Third...as I recall...the Democrats voted for every single spending bill related to the war on terror and passed both resolutions authorizing them.

Now...next time try a little honesty when you post instead of the usual biased bullshit that completely negates any credibility you may have.

And they never would have been forced to vote for ANY of them at all, if your hero and his buddies hadn't gotten us into that stupid assed war in Iraq in the first place, by feeding everyone falsified information.

So, now you're trying to blame Democrats for "Supporting the troops", after you assholes whipped Joe Public into a war frenzy? Sweet. That's a real convincing argument.

 

[Meister]

Bush's two term increase in the national debt. | The Agonist


When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When "W" left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush's presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush's tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

This is going to come as surprise to you, TDM, this will separate an open mind, to a closed mind such as yourself.
Conservatives knew that Bush spent too much, that's why the republicans took a beating in the last election. Conservatives can critique the last administration fairly, while you cannot be that honest with the current one. When is the spending going to stop?

Yes, Bush had a majority in Congress, and the Senate....but there was no super majority...not even close. The democrats were all for spending, also. His spending and war efforts couldn't have been passed without the help of the democrats. Now look where we stand.

 

[Vast LWC]

This is going to come as surprise to you, TDM, this will separate an open mind, to a closed mind such as yourself.
Conservatives knew that Bush spent too much, that's why the republicans took a beating in the last election. Conservatives can critique the last administration fairly, while you cannot be that honest with the current one. When is the spending going to stop?

Conservatives may had expelled some hot air criticizing the Bush administration for spending, but they did not complain at the voting booth due to that issue.

They seemed perfectly fine with all that spending in fact, when it counted.

The reasons why Republicans got whupped in 2006 were the Iraq War and the fact that their representatives couldn't keep away from male interns.

The reason why they got whupped in 2008 was the Iraq War and the fact that they let the economy completely collapse on their watch.

Yes, Bush had a majority in Congress, and the Senate....but there was no super majority...not even close. The democrats were all for spending, also. His spending and war efforts couldn't have been passed without the help of the democrats. Now look where we stand.

The Republicans used reconciliation multiple times to pass tax cuts and spending increases.

Republicans only care about spending too much when they're not in charge. After all, when they're not in charge money is not being spent on the things THEY want to use it for.

 

[Vast LWC]

Now, I'm not saying Democrats haven't added to the debt, because they have, but Republicans have added MORE to the debt, and spouting off about it now seems utterly hypocritical.

 

[Truthmatters]

Bush's two term increase in the national debt. | The Agonist


When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When "W" left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush's presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush's tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate.

He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves - they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth - we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

This is going to come as surprise to you, TDM, this will separate an open mind, to a closed mind such as yourself.
Conservatives knew that Bush spent too much, (When did htey know it? I told them for years and they called me a traitor for saying it)that's why the republicans took a beating in the last election. Conservatives can critique the last administration fairly,(I have seen mostly defending of it) while you cannot be that honest with the current one.(what have you EVER said that was possitive about Obama?) When is the spending going to stop?(When the job is done)

Yes, Bush had a majority in Congress, and the Senate....but there was no super majority...not even close.VETO POWER! The democrats were all for spending, also. (Do you even remember the things that were said about anyone who didnt vote for the money? We had troops in the field) His spending and war efforts couldn't have been passed without the help of the democrats.And of course you blame them for Bush starting two wars Now look where we stand.

And you claim to be bettter than me?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

personally, i dont think that we'd be better off with low/no debt because the dollar's strength would price our economy out of existence. for the moment, it strengthens despite domestic asset deflation and huge deficit spending.

but , since this is your pet peeve, couldnt you blame this entire trend on ron reagan? without his conservative revolution, there would be no deficit at all. whether democratic or republican, we are living in a conservative economic era.

you were around back then, would you prefer the economy in the 70s?

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

first term the senate was R and in the second term the senate was dem

The house was dem the entire time

Thank you!!!! Now we see why the debt tripled.

 

[antagon]

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

i was just a tyke, but i thought the republicans snatched the senate.

now as to my point, who wrote the roth-kemp? who signed it?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Now, I'm not saying Democrats haven't added to the debt, because they have, but Republicans have added MORE to the debt, and spouting off about it now seems utterly hypocritical.

Off base again.....every single entitlement program was passed by Democrats....right now they are all BROKE. Social Security is responsible for half of national debt!!!!!

Try again.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

i was just a tyke, but i thought the republicans snatched the senate.

now as to my point, who wrote the roth-kemp? who signed it?

Who passed it in the House?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Completely factually incorrect and in fact quite a dishonest re-writing of history.

First of all the debt was NOT 12 trillion dollars on January 21st 2009.

You're right, I rounded up. It was 11.6 Trillion dollars. It is now 12.7 Trillion dollars.

Secondly the interest on the entire National Debt hasn't got jack shit to due with the 890 billion dollars Bush spent on the War on Terror.

No, it doesn't, but it DOES have to do with the current national deficit, and the debt.

Third...as I recall...the Democrats voted for every single spending bill related to the war on terror and passed both resolutions authorizing them.

Now...next time try a little honesty when you post instead of the usual biased bullshit that completely negates any credibility you may have.

And they never would have been forced to vote for ANY of them at all, if your hero and his buddies hadn't gotten us into that stupid assed war in Iraq in the first place, by feeding everyone falsified information.

So, now you're trying to blame Democrats for "Supporting the troops", after you assholes whipped Joe Public into a war frenzy? Sweet. That's a real convincing argument.

Thanks for agreeing with my factual post....

 

[Truthmatters]

Who held the majorities in the House and Senate during the Reagan Administration?

first term the senate was R and in the second term the senate was dem

The house was dem the entire time

Thank you!!!! Now we see why the debt tripled.

Where was Reagans veto pen?