Our Present National Woe In One Picture

[Just Win]

This is all you need to understand in order to comprehend the dire straights our Republic is currently in.

[Flummoxed Lummox]

Just Windbag,

The debt when Bush left office was almost $11 trillion. Bush nearly doubled the debt he inherited. At least get your facts straight.

Geez, it's one thing to oppose Obama. I have no problem with honest political disagreements. But spreading LIES because you're such a partisan blowhard is pathetic.

[NCVol]

Just Windbag,

The debt when Bush left office was over $11 trillion. Bush inherited a surplus, and despite the presiding over the largest economic bubble in history, and the tax revenues from those phanton gains, nearly doubled the debt he inherited. At least get your facts straight.

Geez, it's one thing to oppose Obama. I have no problem with honest political disagreements. But spreading LIES because you're such a partisan blowhard is pathetic.

Fixed it just a bit   

It's amazing what lies the right wing will throw out to their ignorant and gullible base... 

[Jeremy Roenick]

I'll not defend Bush in any regards pertaining to the debt.  He was a disaster.

At the same time I won't cover turds in the litter box for Obama either.  He's been disaster 2.0....

[NCVol]

I'll not defend Bush in any regards pertaining to the debt.  He was a disaster.

At the same time I won't cover turds in the litter box for Obama either.  He's been disaster 2.0....

So was Reagan.  The best republican on the deficit was "RINO" H.W. Bush....  And of course the last "balanced" budget was with tax and spend liberal Clinton in charge, raising taxes.  Imagine that, raising taxes and cutting defense the key elements of a balanced budget!

BTW, there is no denying the numbers.  The difference, of course, between Obama and Bush is most of the deficit drivers under Bush were totally voluntary - going to war and to pay for it, cutting taxes.  Signing a brand new drug entitlement and to pay for that, some more tax cuts. 

There have been two big issues driving the current deficits - the depression and all those automatic spending increases in food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, etc that required no vote and no signature by Obama, and the stimulus to put a floor under the depression, which, whether you think it was necessary or not, was a one time deal and isn't the cause of the future deficits.  You can't point to any big spending items that will affect 2012 or 2013 and further out years, because there haven't been any. 

[Flummoxed Lummox]

I'll not defend Bush in any regards pertaining to the debt.  He was a disaster.

At the same time I won't cover turds in the litter box for Obama either.  He's been disaster 2.0....

JR,

I have no problem with anyone who denounces Obama for the increase in the federal debt. It's a fair criticism. I have major problems with idiot blowhards like the SCREAMER who post blatant lies and ignore the FACT that Bush nearly doubled the federal deficit (not to mention destroyed the economy) under his watch. The SCREAMER's link above postulates that Bush added a mere $0.532 trillion to the debt. That's bull . When Bush became President the national debt stood at $5.768 trillion. When he left office, the debt was $10.626 trillion, nearly double. Those are indisputable facts.

In the SCREAMER's mythical world, Bush did no wrong. All of our economic woes began on January 20, 2009. He completely ignores the fact that Bush nearly doubled the federal debt, even though he inherited a strong economy and Clinton left him a budget surplus. He also is oblivious to the reality that Bush destroyed the economy and Obama inherited one that was losing more the 700,000 jobs/month. His blind partisanship is revolting.

That picture he posted at the beginning of this thread is a pure lie. Bush alone added $4.858 trillion to the national debt. Obama has added (as of today) $4.628 trillion. I'll give you that Obama has added virtually the same amount of debt as Bush in less than half the time. But a fair-minded person must take into account that Obama inherited a nearly all-out economic meltdown, while Bush inherited a very strong economy. The economy is now growing (albeit not as fast as most of us want), while it was nearly destroyed by Bush's policies.

The SCREAMER simply has no credibility.

[Sasquatch]

even though he inherited a strong economy and Clinton left him a budget surplus.

Since you are interested in facts, did you know there are a whole slew of economists who say the recession started in Sept. 2000? That would be 4 months BEFORE Bush took office. Then, 8 months after taking office 9-11 occurred. Your idea that everything was rosy when Bush took office is deplorable. Bush screwed up when he instituted the big Medicare plan to get the old people vote. And spending like a drunken Ted Kennedy in his 2nd term, among other things. Clinton was upset he didn't get to deal with 9-11. Whoever the prez was would have wound up spending quite a bit post 9-11.

Here is a link that lists other links and quotes citing economists who revisited the data and realized the date for the start of the recession should have been Sept. 2000:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/08/when_did_the_re.html

[Jeremy Roenick]

You can't point to any big spending items that will affect 2012 or 2013 and further out years, because there haven't been any.

We're spending about a billion dollars right now just to station two aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran as a "show of force".  Imagine what the bill will be when the shooting starts.  

Talking about the future debt and projections is about a useless exercise given our role as "world's police" and the continuing, upward arcing poverty entitlements (food stamps, welfare, and unemployment)...

In the SCREAMER's mythical world, Bush did no wrong. All of our economic woes began on January 20, 2009. He completely ignores the fact that Bush nearly doubled the federal debt, even though he inherited a strong economy and Clinton left him a budget surplus. He also is oblivious to the reality that Bush destroyed the economy and Obama inherited one that was losing more the 700,000 jobs/month. His blind partisanship is revolting.

That's right.  I see a lot of blindness on both sides of the aisle when it comes to the debt and current budget crisis.  A lot of denial.  The reality is both parties are quite culpable in this mess and they both seem quite content to continue kicking the can down the road until one day we WILL run out of road.

[NCVol]

Since you are interested in facts, did you know there are a whole slew of economists who say the recession started in Sept. 2000? That would be 4 months BEFORE Bush took office. Then, 8 months after taking office 9-11 occurred. Your idea that everything was rosy when Bush took office is deplorable. Bush screwed up when he instituted the big Medicare plan to get the old people vote. And spending like a drunken Ted Kennedy in his 2nd term, among other things. Clinton was upset he didn't get to deal with 9-11. Whoever the prez was would have wound up spending quite a bit post 9-11.

Not sure when the recession started matters a whole lot.  The bottom line is every fiscal choice for those years demonstrated the Cheney Doctrine doctrine has, since Reagan, guided GOP fiscal policy - "Reagan proved deficits don't matter.  We won.... [more] tax cuts!" 

There were some republicans who pretended to care during those years.  Not many, but a few.  So it's a little much that Reagan's deficits didn't matter, H.W. was a RINO for raising taxes to address deficits (shunned in polite GOP company) and Bush's deficits didn't matter.  But when a democrat takes office, all of a sudden, overnight, the deficits during the worst downturn in eighty years, a depression, are the most dangerous thing ever, they'll kill us, ruin the country, etc. 

But! NO TAX INCREASES OF ANY KIND to address this deficit crisis that will kill us. 

And, oh yeah, a slowing of the rate of increase in defense spending (aka a "drastic cut" in defense spending) means Obama wants the Mullah's to win, and for China and Russia to take over the world. 

What is acceptable is gutting anything that goes to the poor or middle class. 

The whole fiscal philosophy of the GOP is insane. 

[NCVol]

That's right.  I see a lot of blindness on both sides of the aisle when it comes to the debt and current budget crisis.  A lot of denial.  The reality is both parties are quite culpable in this mess and they both seem quite content to continue kicking the can down the road until one day we WILL run out of road.

You'd have a much better point if every tax proposal from the GOP wasn't more tax cuts, during a deficit and debt crisis.  It makes it impossible to believe they care about deficits, instead of tax rates on the wealthy plutocrats.  Literally not one proposal requires them to pay an extra penny in taxes, and many of the proposals would take the tax burden on a guy worth several hundred million like Romney to ZERO. 

There's no doubt they want to decimate every program for the poor and middle class, though, so there's a sort of seriousness to the proposals.  Grinding austerity for the masses, to fund more riches for the top sliver. 

[Sasquatch]

Not sure when the recession started matters a whole lot. 

Tell that to FL who said "Bush inherited a very strong economy". Of course I won't hold my breath.  

I noticed in your rant you go from Reagan to Bush. No mention of Clinton or even Obama EXTENDING the Bush tax cuts. Interesting.  

But of course you ARE an Obama/dem critic.  

[NCVol]

Tell that to FL who said "Bush inherited a very strong economy". Of course I won't hold my breath.  

I tell you what, when you start correcting DM or JW, then I'll start correcting the minor points where FL and I disagree...  Deal?  OK! 

I noticed in your rant you go from Reagan to Bush. No mention of Clinton or even Obama EXTENDING the Bush tax cuts. Interesting.  

You mean the Clinton who raised taxes without a single republican vote in the House, when the GOP promised depression, jobs losses, tanking the economy and was just about 180 degrees wrong, given the booming stock market and the rising wages and jobs creation, ending in a balanced budget for the first time in decades?  Is that the Clinton I should have mentioned? 

BTW, yes, Obama extended the tax cuts.  It works like this.  The GOP holds a gun to the head of the democrats - lower taxes or else!! And when they do it, most of the time the GOP still blames Obama and the democrats for being tax increasers, which is why the recession has lasted this long, the awful OBAMA SOCIALIST TAX INCREASES!!! Even though taxes have been cut.

But on the rare times when the deficit is the big issue, you guys BLAME OBAMA for cutting tax cuts while the GOP held a gun to his head demanding...tax cuts. 

Seriously, you can't make it up. 

But of course you ARE an Obama/dem critic.  

I could be.  It wouldn't take much for me to vote for a republican.  Sanity!  The return to Reagan's fiscal approach.  It was pretty bad, he nearly tripled the debt, but at least after the initial huge cuts, he spent the next six years raising taxes to a more sane level to address the ballooning deficits.  Nowadays, the GOP would claim that Reagan's initial tax cuts just weren't low enough! 

No kidding, the crazy GOP is really damaging because there really isn't a sane opposition party at this point.  Really, the deal at the end of 2010 is a perfect illustration why.  Obama and the vast majority of the country wanted an extension of the unemployment benefits, given the jobs depression.  A sane fiscally responsible party would require spending cuts of some kind to offset that.  The INsane GOP demanded more tax cuts, because the deficits are awful, so to pay for unemployment benefits in a depression, we need to lower revenues and make the deficits worse.