Who ran up the national debt?

[Stlrs4Life]

http://indiedesign.typepad.com/inspire_political_discour/2010/02/who-ran-up-the-national-debt.html



Who Ran Up the National Debt?


http://indiedesign.typepad.com/2010_images/ipd_2010/republicans/debtcreators.jpg
The persistent cacophony from the Republican debt/deficit hawks, who only surface during Democratic administrations, is enough to keep me rolling my eyes in to perpetuity.The most pitiful and annoying aspect of this particular trait in Republicans, is their seeming forgetfulness.
Indeed, I have become consumed with a burning desire to remind them of exactly who is responsible for driving up U.S. debt. And, as you undoubtedly deduced from my graphic, It is the evil triumvirate of three Republican presidents, at least 2 of which are destined to be remembered in history as "The Two Worst Presidents Ever".
My solution is simple. When these phony deficti/debt hawks start blathering their lies and nonsense in my presence, I ask these conservatives a simple, yet telling, question, leaving them unable to deny reality, at least in my presence.
“Why did you not concern yourself with debt and deficits when Bush-the-Lesser was in office, or for that matter,Dear Ronald????
And, in return, I usually get a blank stare, until I whip out .this graph of the national debt by presidential tenure, and then they whimper as they slink off with what I hope is a sense of deep shame.

http://indiedesign.typepad.com/2010_images/ipd_2010/graphs_charts/national-debt-by-presidential-tenure.png (http://indiedesign.typepad.com/2010_images/ipd_2010/graphs_charts/national-debt-by-presidential-tenure.png)

As one can clearly see when you click the image to enlarge it, the Republican Presidents, beginning with Reagan, are the ONLY Presidents responsible for overall increases in the national debt since World War II.

And, it is well worth noting too, that President Reagan took the United States from being the largest creditor nation in the world, to being the largest debtor nation in the world.

A truly sad commentary on the fiscal policy of Republican Presidents.






Not that it is any better now. But just want to show the Hypocrasy of the Republicans. And the TeaBaggers.

[Mach1]

Yep, and obaaaama is doing so much to get it under control. :doh:

[Stlrs4Life]

You didn't read my last line did you? I edited it so you could.

[NJarhead]

Clinton decreased our debt at our own peril (See 9/11/2001).

[Stlrs4Life]

Clinton decreased our debt at our own peril (See 9/11/2001).

And Bush did to by starting a war.

[NJarhead]

And Bush did to by starting a war.

Bush started the war? Well, had Clinton taken care of business when he had anyone of 1,000 opportunities, we likely wouldn't be at war and I can think of about 3,000+ Americans who'd still be alive right now.

As far as the economy..., think of it as nature; it'll bounce back on its own. Again, basic stuff.

Almost forgot, over 50% of Democrats supported the Invasion in early March 2003. There's a gallop pole; look it up.

[GBMelBlount]

Not that it is any better now. But just want to show the Hypocrasy of the Republicans. And the TeaBaggers.

I don't have a quarrel with you Dom, I just question your logic.

Bashing republicans about hypocrisy, when democrats are no better, is somewhat akin to complaining about the splinter in someone elses eye when you have a log in your own.

Obama will DOUBLE the National debt in only four years.

I understand your point Dom but my main concern is that you seem to repeatedly use this as your primary reason to vote liberal.

I am just curious, do you have any other reasons you vote for democrats?

For instance, I tend to vote conservative because I believe in the principles this country was founded upon, NOT because of the lies & hypocrisy of our elected democrats which are equally as bad....

Just sayin....

[Vis]

When Bush ran the war, the cost of the war was off-book. Sure, it was still debt, but we could all ignore it better. Damn the new truth!

[venom]

Another stimulus bill Barry ??? Sure why not .

[HometownGal]

:applaudit: :thumbsup: :applaudit:


Brett Bartel said...
In a vacuum, your criticism makes sense. However the world is not a vacuum, and surrounding facts matter.

First with Reagan: Yes, Reagan spent a lot of money and he spent on defense. He scared the Russians into thinking we were building SDI. The Russians responded by spending too. Their spending bankrupted them and we won the Cold War. I'd say that spending was justified, and I don't think anyone would do it differently.

With Bush, if you didn't hear Republicans complaining about Bush's spending, you weren't listening, especially with his prescription drug plan. But most of the debt came from the wars. And say what you will, when we went into them, the majority supported it. Once we were in it (even if maybe we shouldn't have) it would have been reckless to get out. Not to mention, Bush was increasing the debt at a time when the country could afford it. The economy was doing well, and tax revenues were high. Now is simply not a time we can afford so much debt.

Again the facts matter. Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. Obama would add another $1 trillion.

The scope of Obama's debt is overwhelming and unsustainable; this will crush our country in the long run.

At the end of the day, bad behavior does not justify worse behavior. Even if Reagan and the Bushes spent too much, that does not justify Obama's spending.

[LLT]

Republican Presidents, beginning with Reagan, are the ONLY Presidents responsible for overall increases in the national debt since World War II.



Uh...How can This administration quadruple the deficit yet NOT BE RESPONSIBLE for the overall increase in the national debt???

[BnG_Hevn]

I agree on the Bush not balancing the budget. What he "should" have done was either finance the war OR finance all the non-essential programs for which the government pays.

Say what you want about Clinton, but balancing the budget "should" be on every presidents' agenda. I don't see 9/11 as being a direct result of cuts on the military etc that Clinton put into motion, after all it's not like they attacked our shores and we couldn't defend ourselves. They'd have gotten to the airports regardless.

With that said, where Bush dropped the ball was in his plan for the war. He should have financed a special ops mission to outs Hussein.

Besides, I still can't understand how the war costs so much money. The "base salary" of the military personnel is already being paid so the only other costs would be supplies and hazard pay. I think the numbers for the money spent on the war are skewed. I'd like to see a breakdown of all the money spent to verify it is actually "spent on the war".

[stlrtruck]

I don't care who is responsible for it, what I want is one true President who is willing to stop passing the buck (no pun intended) and fix it. PERIOD! Make the hard core decisions that have to be made...say like reducing congresses pay, reducing presidential pay, reducing post office benefits, eliminate useless programs, etc)

[GodfatherofSoul]

Clinton warned us about Al Qaeda, but the Republicans blew it off as "wag the dog." Remember that? Duh, extremist Muslim terrorists aren't really that dangerous, Clinton is just trying to distract you from Monica Lewinski.

And, Reagan didn't come up with the "outspend the Russians" game plan, the Eisenhower administration did. The CIA predicted back in the late 60s-early 70s when the Soviet Union would collapse. Somehow, the people who keep trying to turn Reagan into a demigod keep forgetting that (and Iran/Contra).

[SteelCityMan786]

I agree on the Bush not balancing the budget. What he "should" have done was either finance the war OR finance all the non-essential programs for which the government pays.

Say what you want about Clinton, but balancing the budget "should" be on every presidents' agenda. I don't see 9/11 as being a direct result of cuts on the military etc that Clinton put into motion, after all it's not like they attacked our shores and we couldn't defend ourselves. They'd have gotten to the airports regardless.

With that said, where Bush dropped the ball was in his plan for the war. He should have financed a special ops mission to outs Hussein.

Besides, I still can't understand how the war costs so much money. The "base salary" of the military personnel is already being paid so the only other costs would be supplies and hazard pay. I think the numbers for the money spent on the war are skewed. I'd like to see a breakdown of all the money spent to verify it is actually "spent on the war".

You will also want to make note that Clinton's Budget Balancing was during a Republican Majority of Congress (1993-2001). So he can not take complete credit for it. It's a pure example of why having 1 party in control of the other elected portions of govt. actually isn't a bad thing.

Bush was able to spend that much, but also forgot to keep in mind that the tax cuts given to each social class did NOT give enough revenue for congress to spend. Plus, I believe it was also HIS PARTY, that wanted to look for ways to stop Fannie and Freddie before this latest economic mess.


Clinton warned us about Al Qaeda, but the Republicans blew it off as "wag the dog." Remember that? Duh, extremist Muslim terrorists aren't really that dangerous, Clinton is just trying to distract you from Monica Lewinski.

And, Reagan didn't come up with the "outspend the Russians" game plan, the Eisenhower administration did. The CIA predicted back in the late 60s-early 70s when the Soviet Union would collapse. Somehow, the people who keep trying to turn Reagan into a demigod keep forgetting that (and Iran/Contra).

People may want to bash Reagan's spending habbits but at least more times then not he was working to make sure that any new debt resulted in a better future for this country.


http://indiedesign.typepad.com/inspire_political_discour/2010/02/who-ran-up-the-national-debt.html



Who Ran Up the National Debt?


http://indiedesign.typepad.com/2010_images/ipd_2010/republicans/debtcreators.jpg
The persistent cacophony from the Republican debt/deficit hawks, who only surface during Democratic administrations, is enough to keep me rolling my eyes in to perpetuity.The most pitiful and annoying aspect of this particular trait in Republicans, is their seeming forgetfulness.
Indeed, I have become consumed with a burning desire to remind them of exactly who is responsible for driving up U.S. debt. And, as you undoubtedly deduced from my graphic, It is the evil triumvirate of three Republican presidents, at least 2 of which are destined to be remembered in history as "The Two Worst Presidents Ever".
My solution is simple. When these phony deficti/debt hawks start blathering their lies and nonsense in my presence, I ask these conservatives a simple, yet telling, question, leaving them unable to deny reality, at least in my presence.
“Why did you not concern yourself with debt and deficits when Bush-the-Lesser was in office, or for that matter,Dear Ronald????
And, in return, I usually get a blank stare, until I whip out .this graph of the national debt by presidential tenure, and then they whimper as they slink off with what I hope is a sense of deep shame.

http://indiedesign.typepad.com/2010_images/ipd_2010/graphs_charts/national-debt-by-presidential-tenure.png (http://indiedesign.typepad.com/2010_images/ipd_2010/graphs_charts/national-debt-by-presidential-tenure.png)

As one can clearly see when you click the image to enlarge it, the Republican Presidents, beginning with Reagan, are the ONLY Presidents responsible for overall increases in the national debt since World War II.

And, it is well worth noting too, that President Reagan took the United States from being the largest creditor nation in the world, to being the largest debtor nation in the world.

A truly sad commentary on the fiscal policy of Republican Presidents.






Not that it is any better now. But just want to show the Hypocrasy of the Republicans. And the TeaBaggers.

Refer to earlier remarks about Clinton having a Republican congress.

Obama is no Clinton. However, should America find a way to give enough seats back to the Republicans come this fall's election, then he may have a chance to prove himself to be that Clintonesque president.

[Mach1]

Obama is no Clinton. However, should America find a way to give enough seats back to the Republicans come this fall's election, then he may have a chance to prove himself to be that Clintonesque president.

http://www.obamablog08.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/hillary-obama.jpg

[Akagi]

We did. We ALL did. We allowed ALL of our representatives to vote us infinite cake, for free. In exchange, we re-elected them.

Lather, rinse, repeat, until the bottle is empty, our hair is dirty, and there's no money for more shampoo.

[Stlrs4Life]

I don't have a quarrel with you Dom, I just question your logic.

Bashing republicans about hypocrisy, when democrats are no better, is somewhat akin to complaining about the splinter in someone elses eye when you have a log in your own.

Obama will DOUBLE the National debt in only four years.

I understand your point Dom but my main concern is that you seem to repeatedly use this as your primary reason to vote liberal.

I am just curious, do you have any other reasons you vote for democrats?

For instance, I tend to vote conservative because I believe in the principles this country was founded upon, NOT because of the lies & hypocrisy of our elected democrats which are equally as bad....

Just sayin....

I agree, it does happen on both sides. I'm just showing the facts behind all the people blaming the debt on Obama, when it isn't all his fault. I tend to vote liberal because I believe in the principles this country was founded upon, NOT because of the lies & hypocrisy of our elected Republicans which are equally as bad....


Bush started the war? Well, had Clinton taken care of business when he had anyone of 1,000 opportunities, we likely wouldn't be at war and I can think of about 3,000+ Americans who'd still be alive right now.

As far as the economy..., think of it as nature; it'll bounce back on its own. Again, basic stuff.

Almost forgot, over 50% of Democrats supported the Invasion in early March 2003. There's a gallop pole; look it up.


Clinton didn't start no war? Did you fall asleep in Sept 2001? Bush was in office and declared war on Iraq. Bush already washed his hands of those 3,000 who would still be alive.


When Bush ran the war, the cost of the war was off-book. Sure, it was still debt, but we could all ignore it better. Damn the new truth!


:applaudit: :thumbsup: :applaudit:


I don't care who is responsible for it, what I want is one true President who is willing to stop passing the buck (no pun intended) and fix it. PERIOD! Make the hard core decisions that have to be made...say like reducing congresses pay, reducing presidential pay, reducing post office benefits, eliminate useless programs, etc)

Can agree with most of that.


Uh...How can This administration quadruple the deficit yet NOT BE RESPONSIBLE for the overall increase in the national debt???


It is responsible for some of it. Nobody is denying it. But some of it is for the simple fact of failed policies of the previous administration.

[Stlrs4Life]

You will also want to make note that Clinton's Budget Balancing was during a Republican Majority of Congress (1993-2001). So he can not take complete credit for it. It's a pure example of why having 1 party in control of the other elected portions of govt. actually isn't a bad thing.

Bush was able to spend that much, but also forgot to keep in mind that the tax cuts given to each social class did NOT give enough revenue for congress to spend. Plus, I believe it was also HIS PARTY, that wanted to look for ways to stop Fannie and Freddie before this latest economic mess.



People may want to bash Reagan's spending habbits but at least more times then not he was working to make sure that any new debt resulted in a better future for this country.



Refer to earlier remarks about Clinton having a Republican congress.

Obama is no Clinton. However, should America find a way to give enough seats back to the Republicans come this fall's election, then he may have a chance to prove himself to be that Clintonesque president.




Good, by your logic, I can now releave Clinton from signing NAFTA, when it was started by Bush Sr., and passed under a Republican Congress.

[NJarhead]

Clinton didn't start no war? Did you fall asleep in Sept 2001? Bush was in office and declared war on Iraq. Bush already washed his hands of those 3,000 who would still be alive.


Clinton's negligence and failure to act caused 9-11. That and his cutting of funds for personal intelligence via CIA/FBI, etc.

Bush had support in the Iraq invasion as 83% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 63% of Democrats supported military action (http://www.gallup.com/poll/7195/support-invasion-iraq-remains-contingent-un-approval.aspx) because WE ALL believed there were WMD's. We believed this because Saddam Hussein refused to acknowledge he got rid of them. He refused because he did not want Iran to have information that might prompt them to invade Iraq (reasonable enough). He was STILL in violation however has he maintained the ability to quickly mass produce said weapons.

[Vis]

Clinton's negligence and failure to act caused 9-11. That and his cutting of funds for personal intelligence via CIA/FBI, etc.

Bush had support in the Iraq invasion as 83% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 63% of Democrats supported military action (http://www.gallup.com/poll/7195/support-invasion-iraq-remains-contingent-un-approval.aspx) because WE ALL believed there were WMD's. We believed this because Saddam Hussein refused to acknowledge he got rid of them. He refused because he did not want Iran to have information that might prompt them to invade Iraq (reasonable enough). He was STILL in violation however has he maintained the ability to quickly mass produce said weapons.

You believed that because it's what you were told by those who wanted to invade.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Clinton's negligence and failure to act caused 9-11. That and his cutting of funds for personal intelligence via CIA/FBI, etc.

Bush had support in the Iraq invasion as 83% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 63% of Democrats supported military action (http://www.gallup.com/poll/7195/support-invasion-iraq-remains-contingent-un-approval.aspx) because WE ALL believed there were WMD's. We believed this because Saddam Hussein refused to acknowledge he got rid of them. He refused because he did not want Iran to have information that might prompt them to invade Iraq (reasonable enough). He was STILL in violation however has he maintained the ability to quickly mass produce said weapons.

Did you know that Clinton had an ad hoc secretarial post dedicated to terrorism (Richard Clarke [sic]) with the power to call meetings of principles? Did you also know that Bush demoted him and ignored his advice after he came into office and didn't allow him to call a meeting until September 2001?

[steeldawg]

I know the president is the head man in charge but lets get serious and put the blame where it belongs and that is congress!!! How bout some damn term limits on these bozo's. Reps Dems they are all guilty, and with the same old people in congress we get the same tired ideas. Its really pointless to sit here and argue who's fault this is because its all their fault. These politicians only care about 1 thing and thats getting reelected.

[NJarhead]

You believed that because it's what you were told by those who wanted to invade.

:rofl2:

So that's it? You funny guy.

[NJarhead]

Did you know that Clinton had an ad hoc secretarial post dedicated to terrorism (Richard Clarke [sic]) with the power to call meetings of principles? Did you also know that Bush demoted him and ignored his advice after he came into office and didn't allow him to call a meeting until September 2001?
Did you know Clinton fouled up multiple chances to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and did NOTHING in reaction to the Cole bombing? I can't blame Bush for shit canning any weak ass security system Clinton had in place.

[SteelCityMan786]

Good, by your logic, I can now releave Clinton from signing NAFTA, when it was started by Bush Sr., and passed under a Republican Congress.

And I don't really have respect for the Bush Family Presidents either.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Did you know Clinton fouled up multiple chances to eliminate Osama Bin Laden and did NOTHING in reaction to the Cole bombing? I can't blame Bush for shit canning any weak ass security system Clinton had in place.

Did you remember the Cole bombing happened during Clinton's lame duck period when Presidents traditionally don't make major policy decisions (so as not to create a cluster f**k for the incoming Prez)? Did you know the CIA didn't certify the Cole bombing as being caused by Al Qaeda until Bush was in office? And, what did he do about it again?

[NJarhead]

Did you remember the Cole bombing happened during Clinton's lame duck period when Presidents traditionally don't make major policy decisions (so as not to create a cluster f**k for the incoming Prez)? Did you know the CIA didn't certify the Cole bombing as being caused by Al Qaeda until Bush was in office? And, what did he do about it again?
That is a crock of shit. You people try and try and try to put that shit off on Bush every chance you get and then claim that he is ALSO to blame for all of Obama's issues. It's not even worth discussing because all you're going to do is make bold claims with no support and refute supported fact with statements like, "you only believe that because fox wants you to." It's laughable and I think you can understand if I simply can't take you seriously.

[Wallace108]

Good, by your logic, I can now releave Clinton from signing NAFTA, when it was started by Bush Sr., and passed under a Republican Congress.

NAFTA most certainly was NOT passed by a Republican Congress. NAFTA was signed in 1993. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.

According to Al Gore during the signing, he thought NAFTA was in our best interest and gave Clinton full credit: :wink02:


We will, indeed, have much room for free debate during
this controversy. That it is in our nation's best interest to ratify
and pass this treaty cannot be left to doubt. The person who is
leading the fight and who has marshaled support in both parties is the
person it is my pleasure to introduce now. The President of the
United States, Bill Clinton.
http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

[venom]

How many times were we attacked during the Clinton years ? The first Twin Towers bombing , the 2 Embassy attacks in Africa and USS Cole . The only time he did anything is when he wanted to knock the Monica news off the front pages .


* hate the double up of words ( attacks ) *

[Wallace108]

I tend to vote liberal because I believe in the principles this country was founded upon, NOT because of the lies & hypocrisy of our elected Republicans which are equally as bad....

Our country was founded upon liberal principles? Principles like punishing people for achieving? Principles like not wanting us to own guns? Principles like taking from those who work hard and giving it to those who don't? Principles like killing unborn children? I could go on ...

The only time liberals are on the side of the Constitution is when they bastardize it to fit their beliefs.

[venom]

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

[SteelCityMan786]

I am registered to vote as a Republican, but I vote American. Because I don't care about party affiliation, if the Democrat is better then the Republican and vice-versa in my own personal opinion, then I will vote accordingly. I am more concerned about the future of my country, not just my party.

[Wallace108]

At this point, I don't want to vote for Democrats OR Republicans. I keep looking for (C) None of the Above on the ballot. :noidea:

[SCSTILLER]

I love how the dens don't want to blame Clinton for 9-11 because it happened less than a yeah under Bush's watch, but are all too quick to blame Bush for everything that happens on Obama's watch.

[GBMelBlount]

Stlrs4life

I tend to vote liberal because I believe in the principles this country was founded upon, NOT because of the lies & hypocrisy of our elected Republicans which are equally as bad....

I'm glad we both agree that liberal politicians are no more ethical than republicans and should never be a major voting factor.

I am also glad that we both agree that preserving the principles this country was founded upon, freedom and liberty is very important.

So naturally, since you shared that you vote liberal BECAUSE of your strong beliefs in the principles this country was founded upon, I would be interested to know what some of the things that today's liberals are actually doing that you feel promotes freedom and liberty?