Why the Left Doesn't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt

[Vast LWC]

Plus, as far as the total amount is concerned, interest would be the only factor that matters when considering the total amount of the debt...

Inflation actually lowers the real value of the debt in total.

Inflation is good for debtors, deflation is good for debt holders.

 

[mdn2000]

Left against right, left against right, endless fighting, endless.

Which political party promises the USA will lead the world in Steel Production.

Which political party promises the USA will lead the world in production of Textiles.

Which political party is working to bring the production of children's toys back the USA.

Which political party is concerned about the corporations polluting China.

Which political party is passing laws increasing the penalty of politicians who are found guilty of corruption.

Which political party is suggesting child molestors be locked away forever.

Which political party is changing the education system resulting in less cost, less time to educate children, giving total control to the mother and father.

Which political party is concerned it takes 30 years to pay for a house.

Which political party will end property tax so that during a recession americans do not lose their homes.

Get the point.

 

[beowolfe]

(cont.)

From Jan 1987 to Jan 1993, Republicans held the presidency and the Democrats held congress.

During that period, the debt rose from 2.2 Trillion to 4 Trillion. An increase of 1.8 Trillion Dollars.

Again, as the branches were split, we'll split the blame evenly. Bringing the totals up to:

Dems: 1.37 Trillion, Reps: 2.23 Trillion

Now we reach the Clinton Era.

From Jan 1993 to Jan 1995 the debt increased from 4.1 Trillion to 4.7 Trillion. For a total increase of 600 Billion dollars.

During this period Democrats were in control of both branches, so:

Dems: 1.97 Trillion, Reps: 2.23 Trillion

In January of 1995, Republicans took control of both houses of congress. From Jan 1995 to Jan 2001, The president was Democratic and Congress Republican, so again we split the difference. During this period, the Debt rose from 4.7 Trillion to 5.7 Trillion, an increase of 1 Trillion Dollars.

Dems: 2.5 Trillion, Reps: 2.73 Trillion

Now, in Jan 2001, President Bush took office. From Jan 2001 to Jan 2007, except for a brief tie in the senate (with a republican tie-breaker as VP), the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

During this period, the debt rose from 5.7 Trillion to 9 Trillion. An Increase of 3.3 Trillion Dollars.

Dems: 2.5 Trillion, Reps: 6 Trillion Dollars

From Jan 2007 to Jan 2009, the Democrats controlled Congress, and George W Bush was president, so, again, we split the difference. During that period, the debt rose from 9 Trillion to 11.2 Trillion. A difference of 2.2 Trillion dollars.

Dems: 3.6 Trillion, Reps: 7.1 Trillion

Which brings us to 2010, where congress and the presidency are both controlled by Democrats.

In the past year the debt has risen to 12.6 Trillion dollars, for an increase of 1.4 Trillion dollars.

Thus the totals are:


Dems: 4.8 Trillion Dollars, Reps: 7.1 Trillion dollars

Sources:
Composition of Congress, by Political Party, 1855?2008 — Infoplease.com
National Debt Clock - Defeat the Debt
Google

Questions? Comments?

You do realize that your numbers 'don't add up', right?

 

[Vast LWC]

You do realize that your numbers 'don't add up', right?

Well, I started at the level of debt that existed at the start of the Johnson administration, which was in total about 300 Billion...

Oh, no wait, I must have misplaced a couple of hundred billion somewhere... Damn.

It's a pretty damn close approximation though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Congress control spending and the only time we saw any progress was when semi-Conservative Newt ran Congress

 

[Vast LWC]

OK, I went back and fixed all the math. Used a calculator this time. LOL.

 

[Care4all]

2001 bush is clinton's figure...belongs under clinton, they run a fiscal year

2009 barry is bush's figure...under the gvt's fiscal year


but i get the gist of what you are trying to point out....

 

[Vast LWC]

2001 bush is clinton's figure...belongs under clinton, they run a fiscal year

2009 barry is bush's figure...under the gvt's fiscal year


but i get the gist of what you are trying to point out....

Alright, that's a decent point. If you count it like that:

The Dems gain 200 Billion from 2001, and the Reps gain 1.4 Trillion from 2009.

Leaving:

Dems: 3.8 Trillion, Reps: 8.5 Trillion

Either way, my point stands.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually I worked so hard on that, I think I'm goinig to turn it into a new topic in the Economy section.

 

[Charles Stucker]

You missed a vitally important point.
All the spending on Socialist Security, MediScam, and Welfraud can be laid at the feet of the Democrats - in particular FDR who BROKE THE CONSTITUTION and discarded the tattered pieces. Without that abandonment, of Checks and Balances, the entire national debt would still be LESS than a trillion dollars.

Further I did not ask for you to post a few numbers, but ALL the links to congressional records so we could do an in depth analysis of the ACTUAL figures - you failed because we all know what that would reveal.

 

[beowolfe]

Congress control spending and the only time we saw any progress was when semi-Conservative Newt ran Congress

I guess you could look at it that way. Or you could look at it as the only time congress controlled spending was when moderate Clinton was in the white house. Since it was Clinton's budget and not Newt's.

 

[beowolfe]

You missed a vitally important point.
All the spending on Socialist Security, MediScam, and Welfraud can be laid at the feet of the Democrats - in particular FDR who BROKE THE CONSTITUTION and discarded the tattered pieces. Without that abandonment, of Checks and Balances, the entire national debt would still be LESS than a trillion dollars.

Further I did not ask for you to post a few numbers, but ALL the links to congressional records so we could do an in depth analysis of the ACTUAL figures - you failed because we all know what that would reveal.

So, you're able to 'see' alternate realities!! Too cool!! Something tells me that your grandparents didn't see SS as socialist.

 

[Vast LWC]

You missed a vitally important point.
All the spending on Socialist Security, MediScam, and Welfraud can be laid at the feet of the Democrats - in particular FDR who BROKE THE CONSTITUTION and discarded the tattered pieces. Without that abandonment, of Checks and Balances, the entire national debt would still be LESS than a trillion dollars.

And a majority of unnecessary peacetime defense spending can be laid at the feet of Republicans, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Without that, the national debt would be "less than a trillion dollars".

Further I did not ask for you to post a few numbers, but ALL the links to congressional records so we could do an in depth analysis of the ACTUAL figures - you failed because we all know what that would reveal.

Yeah, look Charles, I provided you with some pretty good numbers here. If you're not going to accept them, well that's your perogative, but don't try to explain them away by demanding the tiniest details and then claiming that without them the premise is negated.

You and I both know that I'm right.

Hell, I'm saying both parties are to blame, I'm just giving you the facts here.

 

[Zona]

The real question is why did the right "create" such a debt?

2.5 trillion tax cut
3 trillion in war
trillion stimulus package
Who knows how much wasted on Katrina cleanup that never happened?
Who know how much their drug package cost?

Then the left get's stuck with this mess. Worse, the Republicans, the very people who created this disaster, think they know how to clean it up? Are they insane?

Suddenly, SUDDENLY, they care about how much things cost. Funny isnt it. lol

 

[Charles Stucker]

Hell, I'm saying both parties are to blame, I'm just giving you the facts here.

You're right both are to blame, but the Democrats are the greater culprit. Reagan and Bush Sr. defeated the Soviet threat without a single shot fired. It cost money, but less than a war would have cost.
Clinton set Bush Jr up for a fall. He helped insure a destroyed economy while giving only lip service on informing Bush Jr of Bin Laden's potential threat.
As for your idiot "inflation blah blah blah"
Treat all those 1960'a dollars as if they were 2005 dollars and see how much larger the Democratic portion grows. Why did you ignore the initial 300 Billion in your 1965 numbers? Because that was all from the Democrats?

Saying the Republicans are more at fault is like trying to absolve the Democrats of their lion's share of the responsibility. They (Democrats) broke the system and it has never worked as well since. What is needed is a return to small government, small businesses and self reliance by the citizenry. All those however would sit ill with the democrats who get their votes from Labor unions and welfare recipients (and a bit from liberal academics but those are too few to tip the scales the Democrats NEED poor voters as the middle class is so solidly Republican)
If you cannot realize this from your personal observations then you have no hope of ever seeing the truth.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hell, I'm saying both parties are to blame, I'm just giving you the facts here.

You're right both are to blame, but the Democrats are the greater culprit. Reagan and Bush Sr. defeated the Soviet threat without a single shot fired. It cost money, but less than a war would have cost.
Clinton set Bush Jr up for a fall. He helped insure a destroyed economy while giving only lip service on informing Bush Jr of Bin Laden's potential threat.
As for your idiot "inflation blah blah blah"
Treat all those 1960'a dollars as if they were 2005 dollars and see how much larger the Democratic portion grows. Why did you ignore the initial 300 Billion in your 1965 numbers? Because that was all from the Democrats?

Saying the Republicans are more at fault is like trying to absolve the Democrats of their lion's share of the responsibility. They (Democrats) broke the system and it has never worked as well since. What is needed is a return to small government, small businesses and self reliance by the citizenry. All those however would sit ill with the democrats who get their votes from Labor unions and welfare recipients (and a bit from liberal academics but those are too few to tip the scales the Democrats NEED poor voters as the middle class is so solidly Republican)
If you cannot realize this from your personal observations then you have no hope of ever seeing the truth.

OK...

This thread is titled "Why the Left Doesn't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt".

The OP is specifically blaming Democrats for the debt, and then claiming that the left is using the amassed debt in some conspiracy to "take away our freedoms".

I wasn't trying to absolve the Democrats from anything, I was refuting the OP by pointing out that Republicans have actually done MORE deficit spending than Democrats.

The "blaming" portion of this thread can be laid at the feet of the decidedly right-wing OP.

As for your other points:

1. There were lots of shot fired in the Cold War. Even during Reagan's term in office. They were just done covertly or through third parties.

2. Your Clinton-Bush argument is complete partisan nonsense.

and

3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.

 

[Charles Stucker]

3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.

I suppose what we should do is just print up a few trillion dollars of monopoly money and pay off the debt with that right?

The problem with your so-called analysis is that it falls apart. Of all the presidents in the last 30 years ONLY Clinton has a truly strong economy, and that was absolutely unrelated to his party affiliation. Because of inflation over those years the most recent debt would HAVE TO BE more noticeable. Particularly when you don't include interest on the old debt, which you did NOT. Or discount the effect of the ongoing socialist programs passed by the Democrats, which you did not.

It becomes clear you are a Democratic party hack trying to disguise yourself as a neutral, so I'm done with this thread. Going to the unsubscribe button now.

 

[Vast LWC]

3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.

I suppose what we should do is just print up a few trillion dollars of monopoly money and pay off the debt with that right?

The problem with your so-called analysis is that it falls apart. Of all the presidents in the last 30 years ONLY Clinton has a truly strong economy, and that was absolutely unrelated to his party affiliation. Because of inflation over those years the most recent debt would HAVE TO BE more noticeable. Particularly when you don't include interest on the old debt, which you did NOT. Or discount the effect of the ongoing socialist programs passed by the Democrats, which you did not.

It becomes clear you are a Democratic party hack trying to disguise yourself as a neutral, so I'm done with this thread. Going to the unsubscribe button now.

Well, I've done a whole lot of math here, and all you've done is provided empty rhetoric.

So, I'll tell you what. I've already provided the numbers. If you can prove mathematically that my assertions are wrong, be my guest. If not, well then I guess you should give up your argument right now.

 

[Care4all]

3. As mentioned earlier, the effect of inflation on debt is to lower the real value of the debt, not raise it.

I suppose what we should do is just print up a few trillion dollars of monopoly money and pay off the debt with that right?

The problem with your so-called analysis is that it falls apart. Of all the presidents in the last 30 years ONLY Clinton has a truly strong economy, and that was absolutely unrelated to his party affiliation. Because of inflation over those years the most recent debt would HAVE TO BE more noticeable. Particularly when you don't include interest on the old debt, which you did NOT. Or discount the effect of the ongoing socialist programs passed by the Democrats, which you did not.

It becomes clear you are a Democratic party hack trying to disguise yourself as a neutral, so I'm done with this thread. Going to the unsubscribe button now.

so are you implying the republicsns , when in full majority of congress for 12 years, who only added to entitlement programs while they were in office, and who took no measures to change social security or medicare entitlements during their rule are absolved from all of this? are you really trying to sell that?

 

[Care4all]

social security has NEVER been in the RED in those figures charles, we have only had a surplus of ss money....so that entitlement has shown ZERO DEFICITS in those figures of his....

medicare and the republican medicare pill bill has though, no question there....