How George W. Bush's Two Tax Cuts, 2001 and 2003 Screwed The Pooch

[Avorysuds]

Tax cuts for the wealthy is OK if the country can afford them. When borrowing from foreign banks to fund them.....NOT SO MUCH!

This includes the expenditures associated with the two wars...one totally unnecessary

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
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(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
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 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.

• Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
• Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.
• Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966.
• Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.
• Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.
• Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

• Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.
• Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people. It provided middle-class tax relief with a $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits for college. It also created the Children's Health Insurance Program to serve up to 5 million children and made landmark investments in education initiatives including educational technology, charter schools, Head Start, and Pell Grants. Finally, it added 20 more Empowerment Zones and 20 more rural Enterprise Communities, included the President's plan to revitalize the District of Columbia, and continued welfare reform though $3 billion in new resources to move welfare recipients to private-sector jobs.
• Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation's fiscal discipline. The President's actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.
• Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.

No defense to the giant welfare growing president that was Bush but shall I post the graphs given by the best economists on earth about what UE was supposed to be with the stimulus vs without... and then what it was?

Bush's tax cuts didn't cause the problems, it was the hundreds of billions he was spending on new Government welfare programs, including military.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I think its like a hole has to be dug and that hole is deficient spending. Bush dug a deep ass hole from pretty much flat ground. He climbed out and Obama climbed in but that hole still needed to be dug because they are still spending. As a result of the deep ass hole Bush left Obama hit water.

And they blame the water on Obama...not the deep hole he climbed into to begin with.

Wow. The 19 trillion dollar debt is Bush's fault. Folks, this is exactly why drugs are illegal.

Yeah drugs will make you see numbers when no one mentioned them at all.

 

[BluesLegend]

We almost tripled the debt when Reagan was president and righties worship him like some sort of demigod.

Hey newsflash skippy, Democratic presidential candidates ran around singing the praises of Reagan in 2008 trying to convince voters they were just like him. OH SNAP!

 

[Iceweasel]

I think its like a hole has to be dug and that hole is deficient spending. Bush dug a deep ass hole from pretty much flat ground. He climbed out and Obama climbed in but that hole still needed to be dug because they are still spending. As a result of the deep ass hole Bush left Obama hit water.

And they blame the water on Obama...not the deep hole he climbed into to begin with.

Wow. The 19 trillion dollar debt is Bush's fault. Folks, this is exactly why drugs are illegal.

Yeah drugs will make you see numbers when no one mentioned them at all.

You may have avoided them but they're still there. Drugs do that to you.

 

[Programmer]

Neo-Conservatism is not thrifty. Think if these dollars were spent domestically or not at all.

I don't know who Neo is but conservatives want less spending, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. If you're trying to blame them so nobody questions the insane spending by the left, it ain't gonna happen.

You only describe fiscal conservatism. Neo- is the millitary industrial complex' grip on the GOP. Social- is the evangelical grip on the GOP. There's more money and power behind the latter two, which is why there haven't been any small-gov fiscal conservatives since... The 1920s? Maybe since, but I struggle to think of a president who'd set aside millitary lobbies for conservative principles.

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

 

[healthmyths]

Tax cuts for the wealthy is OK if the country can afford them. When borrowing from foreign banks to fund them.....NOT SO MUCH!

This includes the expenditures associated with the two wars...one totally unnecessary

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
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(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
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 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.

• Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
• Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.
• Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966.
• Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.
• Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.
• Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

• Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.
• Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people. It provided middle-class tax relief with a $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits for college. It also created the Children's Health Insurance Program to serve up to 5 million children and made landmark investments in education initiatives including educational technology, charter schools, Head Start, and Pell Grants. Finally, it added 20 more Empowerment Zones and 20 more rural Enterprise Communities, included the President's plan to revitalize the District of Columbia, and continued welfare reform though $3 billion in new resources to move welfare recipients to private-sector jobs.
• Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation's fiscal discipline. The President's actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.
• Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.

OH am I so glad you offered this because NOT ONE Place in your one sided diatribe did YOU mention all these things that occurred THAT if we had NOT the tax cuts or George Bush as president not only would the economy really really be bad but Americans would have been in such a total state of despair ...i.e. what would have happened if we had Obama as President WhO BLAMES Americans for everything!

But of course NOTHING else was happening in the USA from 2001 to 2008.
Just the big bad Bush not reigning in the big bad banks! YUP all that dummy Bush's fault right?
But wait... seems to me there were a few other events going on during this time. Events that had never happened in one presidency in USA history.
Just as a reminder as I've had to do numerous times because people forget!


Recession Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because you don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like football length tankers... it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does
a "RECESSION"... it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months

A Major $5 trillion market loss Are you aware that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in market losses?
AND GUESS WHAT LOSSES shelter other income from taxes! So during the past few years these $5 trillion in losses have been against tax payments!

Again Clinton laid claim BUT someone had to pay and it occurred during Bush's first year!
$5 trillion in market losses MEAN lost tax revenue
PLUS JOBS!!!!
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion

The worst attacks on the USA in History.. 3,000 deaths!!!
Obviously most of you are UNAWARE 9/11 cost 3,000 lives,
$2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Are you aware this happened???
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone. Airlines didn't fly for 3 days!
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: 10 Events That Rocked the Financial World

SO AGAIN you totally ignorant people like you don't seem to know THOSE ARE BUSINESS LOSSES as well as NO INCOME coming in to the
companies!
Remember the Anthrax Attacks...
The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others.
I lived through it and like millions had hesitation to open any suspicious envelope. That happened millions of times!

$1 trillion in losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
Again idiots like you TOTALLY forget these were the worst hurricane SEASONS in history! The worst! No presidency every faced the following:
The worst, Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005.
It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages.
It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.

Rank Disaster Year Deaths Damage* $250 Billion in damages in the 8 disasters of the top 15 disasters in history!
1. Hurricane Katrina (LA/MS/AL/FL) 2005 1833 $133,800,000,000
6. Hurricane Ike (TX/LA/MS) 2008 112 $27,000,000,000
7. Hurricane Wilma (FL) 2005 35 $17,100,000,000
8. Hurricane Rita (TX/LA) 2005 119 $17,100,000,000
9. Hurricane Charley (FL) 2004 35 $16,500,000,000
12. Midwest Floods 2008 24 $15,000,000,000
13. Hurricane Ivan (FL/AL) 2004 57 $13,000,000,000
14. 30-State Drought 2002 0 $11,400,000,000
Costliest U.S. Weather Disasters | Weather Underground

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of :
a) 400,000 jobs lost due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita ,
b) 2,800,000 jobs lost in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev2008_0.html#usgs302

2000 $236.2 billion surplus
2001 $128.2 billion surplus
2002 $157.8 billion deficit.. also 9/11 occurred and tax revenues lowered for years later
2003 $377.6 billion deficit.. BRAND new cabinet Homeland Security, plus loans made to businesses.. again tax revenues down..affect of 9/11
2004 $412.7 billion deficit.. Revenues up by 5.5% spending increased and economy getting back.
2005 $318.3 billion deficit.. revenues up by 14.5% deficit decreasing at rate of 22%
2006 $248.2 billion deficit.. revenues up by 11.7% deficit decrease 22%
2007 $160.7 billion deficit.. revenues up by 6.7% deficit decrease 35%
2008 $458.6 billion deficit.. revenues down and deficit INCREASED TARP loan mostly...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Largest Gross Domestic Product in history!!
When Bush took office in 2001 GDP was $12.355,271,000,000
when Bush left office in 2008 GDP was $14,359,490,000,000
A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION.
So how did those 4 gigantic events affect the Gross Domestic Product from 2000 to 2009?

So starting in 2001 132,548,000 people were working.
At the end of 2008 138,056,000 people working..

So I would say GWB was fairly involved in the above YET his administration tried:

"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform at least 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded and even ridiculed :
, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and
called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
Setting the Record Straight: The Three Most Egregious Claims In The New York Times Article On The Housing Crisis

 

[Campbell]

what a bias article. Bill clinton introduced a budget that was so out of line that even his own party voted against it.
then they lost both the house and senate and republicans and Newt Gingrich brought the contract for America and reduced the budget
and the dems couldn't get rid of newt fast enough
Now the dems brag how they balance the budget in those years
You dems have been very dishonest about the budget those years
...and how the dems cheered bubba's fiscal resonsibilty during 2012 convention speech, but when it was actually being done in 94 you guys demonized gingrich. Hilarious.

I hear all your made up bullshit. How you gonna account for the damage done by Reagan and the Bushes tax cuts? That's where all the debt came from. Obama's expenditures have been on programs for ordinary working Americans or interest on the debt he assumed when he took office:


.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)


09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)


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(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16


09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)


09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)


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 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00


09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)


09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[Campbell]

I don't know who Neo is but conservatives want less spending, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. If you're trying to blame them so nobody questions the insane spending by the left, it ain't gonna happen.

You only describe fiscal conservatism. Neo- is the millitary industrial complex' grip on the GOP. Social- is the evangelical grip on the GOP. There's more money and power behind the latter two, which is why there haven't been any small-gov fiscal conservatives since... The 1920s? Maybe since, but I struggle to think of a president who'd set aside millitary lobbies for conservative principles.

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Bush carried out a Republican agenda that had been on a hot burner since 1993 When Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar. Here is a letter written and signed by the guts of the Republican party trying to convince Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't know who Neo is but conservatives want less spending, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. If you're trying to blame them so nobody questions the insane spending by the left, it ain't gonna happen.

You only describe fiscal conservatism. Neo- is the millitary industrial complex' grip on the GOP. Social- is the evangelical grip on the GOP. There's more money and power behind the latter two, which is why there haven't been any small-gov fiscal conservatives since... The 1920s? Maybe since, but I struggle to think of a president who'd set aside millitary lobbies for conservative principles.

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

 

[Campbell]

You only describe fiscal conservatism. Neo- is the millitary industrial complex' grip on the GOP. Social- is the evangelical grip on the GOP. There's more money and power behind the latter two, which is why there haven't been any small-gov fiscal conservatives since... The 1920s? Maybe since, but I struggle to think of a president who'd set aside millitary lobbies for conservative principles.

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Bullshit.....the hell it won't. He cut tax rates for his rich buddies twice after assuming a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to a paid up debt. What he did....even without the invasion of Iraq, which was totally unnecessary and was nothing more than personal revenge, was set the things in motion which took our economy completely down beginning with the settlement of the mortgage industry's absolute greedy scheme at a cost of nearly $800 billion. We would have been plunged into a depression like the other Republican, Hoover brought on in the late 1920's. The difference.......Hoover didn't have billions to hand to the banks so they closed their doors and went on a long vacation.

 

[Programmer]

You only describe fiscal conservatism. Neo- is the millitary industrial complex' grip on the GOP. Social- is the evangelical grip on the GOP. There's more money and power behind the latter two, which is why there haven't been any small-gov fiscal conservatives since... The 1920s? Maybe since, but I struggle to think of a president who'd set aside millitary lobbies for conservative principles.

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

 

[Campbell]

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

This is what it SHOULDN'T look like. Look closely at the effect Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy caused. See how the wealthiest earners had begun to come down to a more reasonable difference with the lower half of earners.

Now.....look at what the upper 1% of earners immediately began to do after George W. Bush cut their taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. Somebody is going to have to stop this insanity. The upper 5% of our population cannot have it all:

I the late 1940's and 1950's a corporate executive made about 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber earned. By 1970-1980 that figure had increased to about 70 times as much. In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. Who the hell do these people think they are?

If adjusted for inflation the lower half of earners have either stagnated or lost money.

 

[Programmer]

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Social Security, even welfare is spent domestically. War and post-war apologetics are generally not. I'm not even that opposed to the Iraq bs now. I think it works in our favor. I disagree with the war/debt debt/recession correlation. It's there. This is how politicians get away with having 'conservative records'. For lack of an example in our lifetime, people don't know what it should look like.

This is what it SHOULDN'T look like. Look closely at the effect Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase on the wealthy caused. See how the wealthiest earners had begun to come down to a more reasonable difference with the lower half of earners.

Now.....look at what the upper 1% of earners immediately began to do after George W. Bush cut their taxes not once but twice, 2001 and 2003. Somebody is going to have to stop this insanity. The upper 5% of our population cannot have it all:

I the late 1940's and 1950's a corporate executive made about 12-15 times what a carpenter or plumber earned. By 1970-1980 that figure had increased to about 70 times as much. In 2012 a CEO made over 500 times what an ordinary worker earned. Who the hell do these people think they are?

If adjusted for inflation the lower half of earners have either stagnated or lost money.

Success is not a problem, buddy. It's just not going to be given to you at some job if you're not absolutely exceptional... Or your daddy wasn't absolutely exceptional.

These charts certainly have to do with how money is being made, rather than the minor amount of tax burden clinton put on his 1% friends.

Who cares about income share! Look who really takes the burn when the economy gets hit. Who the hell do these people think they are?

 

[Campbell]

You only describe fiscal conservatism. Neo- is the millitary industrial complex' grip on the GOP. Social- is the evangelical grip on the GOP. There's more money and power behind the latter two, which is why there haven't been any small-gov fiscal conservatives since... The 1920s? Maybe since, but I struggle to think of a president who'd set aside millitary lobbies for conservative principles.

Oh, the industrial military complex. You mean the ones the Democrats are in bed with. How do they get a pass in your mind? No small government conservatives since the 20s huh? You must be shooting pure morphine in your temples.

I'm not a democrat, bud. The whole government and military is influenced by our industry, of course. After McCain Feingold, I thought that the GOP entertained more hardline support from the MIC, marginalizing fiscal conservatism to talk rather than practice.

Can you help me with a gov't shrinking prez in the last 50-80 yrs? We've had wars and things that make this impossible even if the president had the principles in their heart. Who do you have in mind? How can you show that we've ever rolled back government since the turn of the last century?

When did I say you were a Democrat? The fact is they have skin in the game, it isn't neo this or neo that.

Presidents set agendas, you can't blame all spending on them. Republicans in congress have spent less and take a lot of heat for it. But you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the American voters select the candidates, they aren't appointed by party heads. Americans spend too much personally too, many tried to get rich quick with the housing boom. Blaming a president on it is lame.

I thought you were saying I should sit over there with democrats because I didn't like Iraq. Neocon may have first been used on JFK, or at least that's how I see it, so not a partisan thing. I'm not even opposed to milspend. With just Afghanistan, I think the Bush legacy would be shinier.

Now I know recessions happen, but Bush was dealt a bad hand that he played poorly as president. . Nevermind this seeming like I'm dragging some party down or up. Bush proved that doubling down doesn't have great odds. good tax plan + good tax plan = bad tax strategy, debt. Afghanistan + Iraq = bad foreign and fiscal policy. These are tough decisions to make, but I don't think Bush thought much on the economic impact of Iraq. Some presidents do. His daddy, Reagan, even Clinton.

Iraq destroying the economy is bullshit. We have spent way way more since. Agree or disagree with the war it pales in comparison to entitlement spending. For some reason that never gets scrutiny although a much larger percent of GNP.

It's a tactic, blame Bush and make your anti-war stand all in one. We should have would have recovered by now but the current fiscal policies/ regulations/ anti-business bullshit is keeping most of us down. The rich get richer in this kind of environment and less opportunity for the working stiff. Those on the government dole have increased dramatically. The Bush blame won't fly.

Bush blame is history and it will stand. In 1993 Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate ex president George H. W. Bush and the entire Republican party went ape shit. They were looking for some reason to invade Iraq even writing a letter from all key Republicans in 1998 all but begging president Clinton to invade. Don Rumsfeld asked his staff to prepare a plan for an Iraqi invasion 30 minutes after the hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon. It will forever be a stain on America and it's not over. Saddam Hussein had kept the Shias and Sunnis apart for a quarter century and in one fell swoop Bush, his cabinet and their bare faced lies to the American people told to gain support for an invasion will be a matter of record forever. Guess What? There's not a single hint of the catastrophe, the torture and mistreatment of captured Iraqis in Bush's library. A lot about his hobbies and BBQ's at the Crawford ranch but nothing about the 4500 dead young Americans who died in that hell hole or the 35,000 who were seriously wounded:

There were a documented 935 lies told by Bush and his cabinet. They started lying to the American people shortly after 9/11 and it continued for two years. They didn't have any agenda they rated more important than gaining support for an Iraqi invasion. That draft dodging bastard was good at sending other young Americans to fight and die but never any good at taking part in the Vietnamese conflict while he was young. Can You Say Draft Dodger??

 

[sealybobo]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No ******* wonder no one is spending.

 

[sealybobo]

Does this mean anything?

Yes. Don't give your rich buddies a tax break if all you are doing is borrowing the money from China.

 

[gipper]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No ******* wonder no one is spending.

This is straight out of the DNC talking points and total bullshit. BO had to double the national debt because of Bush...how dumb does one have to be to believe that?

Has BO's massive spending done any good? Of course not for most Americans, but the .01% and those connected to government have done very well.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay...the dipshit shrub generated huge deficits.

Then, his successor generated even larger deficits, but he gets a pass. Why?

Because most of Obama's spending was cleaning up Bush's mistakes. Obama may have had a surplus like Clinton if not for Bush. Clinton handed Bush a surplus and you see what he did with it? Bush didn't hand Obama a surplus.

Lord knows how great America would be doing if Bush didn't hand Obama a deficit and a train wreck. Who knows? We may have universal single payer healthcare, less illegal employers, a more fair tax system so that the masses would be saving money again and making interest on their savings.

Instead we gave the rich tax breaks, hired illegals, sent good jobs overseas and started two wars. Then Bush and all the GOP governors raised taxes on us little guys. No ******* wonder no one is spending.

This is straight out of the DNC talking points and total bullshit. BO had to double the national debt because of Bush...how dumb does one have to be to believe that?

Has BO's massive spending done any good? Of course not for most Americans, but the .01% and those connected to government have done very well.

Yes, the truth is straight out of the DNC's talking points.

Maybe you should have let BO spend the money on what he wanted to spend money on instead of tea bagging him the entire way.

What did BO spend money on?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/?_r=0

Huntsman thought Obama’s stimulus plan wasn’t big enough

Economist: Obama Stimulus Not Enough

 

[1treedancer]

And this....its fun blowing up left wing propaganda...

“The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office. Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent. Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running.
Letter: National debt is out of control

From your link in post #8.

I wonder how many Clinton debts (blue column) would fit into the bush (red column).Looks to me that the bush (red column) is at least three times as large as the Clinton (blue column.

While you’re pondering that, take a peek at the BO red column and ponder how many bush red columns would fit into that.

 

[Redfish]

And this....its fun blowing up left wing propaganda...

“The federal debt has already grown more during Obama’s first six years than under all previous U.S. presidents combined, at least in nominal dollars with no adjustment for inflation. The debt owed to the public stands at about $13 trillion, an increase of 106 percent since Obama first took office. Total debt, counting money the government owes to itself, stands at $18.1 trillion, up 70 percent. Both debt figures continue to grow, though less rapidly than during Obama’s first few years when annual deficits topped $1 trillion for four years running.
Letter: National debt is out of control

From your link in post #8.

I wonder how many Clinton debts (blue column) would fit into the bush (red column).Looks to me that the bush (red column) is at least three times as large as the Clinton (blue column.

While you’re pondering that, take a peek at the BO red column and ponder how many bush red columns would fit into that.

when obama took office the debt was around 10 trillion, when he leaves it will be over 20 trillion. he will have doubled it in 8 years. Said another way, obama added more to the national debt than the previous 43 presidents, COMBINED.

post all the charts you want and try to weasel word them, but the truth cannot be denied. the debt doubled under obama.