The National Debt

[Buford_Julep]

Here is the Bush National Debt record from from Jan 20. 2001 to Jan 20, 2009. when Bush took office the debt was $5.7 Trillion. It was $10.6 trillion when he left. These figures are according to an official Treasury Department web site.www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Here are some Treasury yearly debt figures from 1950-1999. Please note the debt went from $257 Billion in 1950 to $908 Billion on Sep 30, 1980. Then, under Ronald Reagan, the debt skyrocketed to near $3 Trillion. There was moderate growth under Bush the elder and Clinton before the disaster under Bush II. www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

The official Treasury Department figures from the official Treasury Department web site make it clear that two presidents, Reagan and Bush II, are responsible for over half of our National Debt.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Buford_Julep

[EagleGreen]

And they said they wanted smaller goverment. LOL.

[KingDL1]

And they said they wanted smaller goverment. LOL.

Simple stuff for simple minds.

Never mind that Clinton rode the fall of the Soviets and the .com wave of success until his last year. He cut the military back too far back, and made it very expensive to rebuild. Bush had a couple of crazy hurricanes, and most importantly a reeling economy from the dot coms that rolled right into 911. Don't kid your selfs Gore would have spent twice as much at least and probably 4 times as much. Just look at the current jerk-off. If your numbers are correct and bush raised it 5.7 trillion, Obama on has already set the ground work to blow past that in four years, and that is without any unexpected crisis, last I saw he had increased just a few billion short of a full Trillion in just 6 months in the area of $971,540,894,255, and thats not including the stuff that has not kicked in yet, or the programs he has in front of congress currently. If he keeps this pace he will be at 8 trillion Dollars of added debt in 4 years, and did I say that is without any major crisis. All bets are off say N Korea or someone strikes the US with a Nuclear missile, who knows.

[UNTflyer]

It's Obama's budget now, where's your outrage over his spending? Obama's deficit makes Bush like a frugal penny pincher.

Sure, the debt went up a LOT under Bush, but the annual deficit was still a small percentage of the GDP. In fact, it was lower under Bush than it was under Clinton.

So far under Obama, our deficit is 13% of the GDP. The budget will consume 40% of the GDP, which we haven't seen since WWII.

So if the Bush deficits and the debt are really that important, you should be livid about Obama's to date and what he plans to do.

[UNT90]

So the answer, apparently, is to go into greater debt?

In essence, your argument is "they screwed up, so it's ok if we REALLY screw up". Just illogical.

Please join us all in the year 2009.

[gksmith]

Remember who else greatly increased the national debt? Ronald Regan.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Remember who else greatly increased the national debt? Ronald Regan.

True -- Reagan almost tripled the national debt --that is three times all of the previous 39 Presidents COMBINED -- and then Bush Jr. managed to even double that ridiculous total.

So much for claiming to be a financial conservative ... Wonder what what a Super-spend Democrat would have done... Example: Clinton increased it by less than 2% per year for his eight years... That is Liberal ?????

Reagan and Bush sound like Liberals to me. Bush senior did ok then the GOP conservative wing abandoned him and voted for Perot...

--Oh well there is the truth and what people want to be true... it isn't the same.

[UNTflyer]

Wonder what what a Super-spend Democrat would have done...

All you have to do is watch the news. Again, if you are outraged about Republican spending, where's your outrage over Obama's spending?

[UNTflyer]

True -- Reagan almost tripled the national debt --that is three times all of the previous 39 Presidents COMBINED -- and then Bush Jr. managed to even double that ridiculous total.

"A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/...l#ixzz0LrMm7oTR"

----------------

Where's your outrage???

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

"A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/...l#ixzz0LrMm7oTR"

----------------

Where's your outrage???

And who caused it.... and where were your conservative ideas when Bush DOUBLED the debt....and wrecked the economy... The Dow dropped 5000 points and if you had asny money there you lost 40% (or more) ..... and you defended him and still do..??? I am outraged because of my losses and because of his stupidity..snd the gullibile people that could not see what was really happening..... Wake up. We kept saying he was no conservative. but many would not listen

And no ..I don't support all of the current ideas to correct the problems that started under BUSH .... but then again.... who started these bailouts.... It was BUSH... you can read... and do remember what happened last year ..... corrrect.?? The DOW has been fairly stable since January this year.... look it up.

Edited July 21, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTflyer]

And who caused it.... and where were your conservative ideas when Bush DOUBLED the debt....and wrecked the economy... The Dow dropped 5000 points and if you had asny money there you lost 40% (or more) ..... and you defended him and still do..??? I am outraged because of my losses and because of his stupidity..snd the gullibile people that could not see what was really happening..... Wake up. We kept saying he was no conservative. but many would not listen

And no ..I don't support all of the current ideas to correct the problems that started under BUSH .... but then again.... who started these bailouts.... It was BUSH... you can read... and do remember what happened last year ..... corrrect.?? The DOW has been fairly stable since January this year.... look it up.

First, the national debt did not wreck the economy. You need to come down from that tree. It was partly (a large part) due Democratic policies dating back to Clinton of forcing banks to give mortgages to people who had no business buying homes, and failed oversight of Fannie/Freddie. When Fannie/Freddie failed, that caused the credit markets to collapse. Without money to loan, the economy came to a skidding halt. Again, NOTHING to do with the national debt.

And if you think the debt caused the economy to go bad, how do you explain going $23 trillion further in debt will help? You are inconsistent, and it all boils down to the fact that you hate Bush. It's getting tiresome.

Second, I opposed his spending... go back and check the record. You don't have to tell us he wasn't conservative... the Bushes are all New England blue blood moderates, they always have been.

Third, I had money in the market. I kept it in the market. In 2007, I moved almost everything to bonds, gold, and energy stocks. I made money... only about 3% since then, but it's better than losing. Anyone who doesn't know how to invest should stay out of the market.

Fourth, the Dow has NOT been stable since January... it plummeted 16% between Obama's inauguration and the end of February. We're just now getting back to even since Jan 1.

Your Bush obsession is quite disturbing. I really suggest therapy. You can't blame it all on Bush's spending, there were so many factors in the economic troubles we're having. It is worldwide.

[FirefightnRick]

It's Obama's budget now, where's your outrage over his spending?

Why isn't there any outrage over Obama's budget? Because he's so HISTORIC!!!!!!

$23 Trillion dollars?, Damn!

Rick

Edited July 21, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[gksmith]

True Obama is increasing the debt. But remember...GWB added a lot to the national debt but there is nothing to show for it. No update in infrastructure, nothing to show for the spending.

Obama is having to undo all of the problems GWB administration did. The fall of the banking industry (because of the safety precautions removed over the last 8 years) lead to the decrease in the economy. The bail-out is to get companies spending and HIRING people again...to get the economy running again.

[oldguystudent]

I'm holding this nation and it's UN partners for ransom for twenty three hundred bazillion jillion dooolars!

Edited July 22, 2009 by oldguystudent

[UNTFan23]

True Obama is increasing the debt. But remember...GWB added a lot to the national debt but there is nothing to show for it. No update in infrastructure, nothing to show for the spending.

Obama is having to undo all of the problems GWB administration did. The fall of the banking industry (because of the safety precautions removed over the last 8 years) lead to the decrease in the economy. The bail-out is to get companies spending and HIRING people again...to get the economy running again.

/Yawn

This has already been beaten to death. Care to find something new and way more creative to bring up?

[eeally]

First, the national debt did not wreck the economy. You need to come down from that tree. It was partly (a large part) due Democratic policies dating back to Clinton of forcing banks to give mortgages to people who had no business buying homes, and failed oversight of Fannie/Freddie. When Fannie/Freddie failed, that caused the credit markets to collapse. Without money to loan, the economy came to a skidding halt. Again, NOTHING to do with the national debt.

And if you think the debt caused the economy to go bad, how do you explain going $23 trillion further in debt will help? You are inconsistent, and it all boils down to the fact that you hate Bush. It's getting tiresome.

Second, I opposed his spending... go back and check the record. You don't have to tell us he wasn't conservative... the Bushes are all New England blue blood moderates, they always have been.

Third, I had money in the market. I kept it in the market. In 2007, I moved almost everything to bonds, gold, and energy stocks. I made money... only about 3% since then, but it's better than losing. Anyone who doesn't know how to invest should stay out of the market.

Fourth, the Dow has NOT been stable since January... it plummeted 16% between Obama's inauguration and the end of February. We're just now getting back to even since Jan 1.

Your Bush obsession is quite disturbing. I really suggest therapy. You can't blame it all on Bush's spending, there were so many factors in the economic troubles we're having. It is worldwide.

Republican congress 96' to 06...both houses. Republican President 00-08... Blaming Clinton for anything makes you sound ignorant and much like the clamoring of a Hannity or Limbaugh!

We all know who is to blame for our 401k's not moving an inch in the last 8 yrs. OIL....and its leaders! that is it. They cared for nothing but the profits of their base and that is why they are all sitting on their ass at home on a pile of money.

Just kidding! keep posting away....everything I post is nuts too....