...administration would take 100 years to erase??
Yet due to his tax cuts and the resulting economic boom the government was able to balance the budget and reduce the debt in less than 10 years.
The libs are crying about it again! Only this time it WILL take longer to mend because they wouldn't pass all of Bush's tax cuts.
2006-10-04 06:05:31 · 14 answers · asked by El Pistolero Negra 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
notme, that is one of the exact things my next question addresses.
2006-10-04 06:17:25 · update #1
Never confuse them with the facts,
They hate that.
2006-10-04 06:07:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The Bureau of the Public Debt (part of the US Department of the Treasury) shows that the national debt has increased every year since 1960, with by far the greatest increases during the Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush years. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the national debt has been reduced. See the link below.
The national budget showed a deficit through the Reagan/Bush years, was finally balanced in 1997 under Clinton, and showed a surplus in the last year of Clinton's presidency. The budget was back in the red two years after George W. Bush took office. See the link to the General Accounting Office report, below.
Lets look at the average rate of increase in the national debt for each presidental term since Carter (numbers in billions of dollars per year):
Carter 76-80 $69
Reagan 80-84 $183
Reagan 84-88 $235
Bush 88-92 $366
Clinton 92-96 $290
Clinton 96-00 $112
Bush 00-04 $426
Bush 04-05 $554
The actual numbers from the US Department of the Treasury don't agree with your statement.
2006-10-04 07:09:44 · answer #2 · answered by Steven Jay 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say there might be a few problems with your take.
The massive debt that the gov. and consumers have run up the last n years is going to hamper any leaders option.
The huge waste of money that will result from Iraq will also add to the problem. (est up to 500 billion for VA, and 100's of billion to rehab the military hardware lost/shot up).
The drug program that will add to the problems of medicare and there are another 2 years of this to go.
Tax cut, I seem to remember that Clinton raised taxes and that corrected the budget deficit, but I don't recall the national debt created under Reagan ever being paid off? Did i miss something or are you maybe not telling the whole story, naaaa you'd never do that would you?
2006-10-04 06:13:16 · answer #3 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
And did you in addition to could word the congress have been ruled by using liberals for the period of all of those presidents words ? And the Republicans took over congress in the process the 90s for the period of Clinton's term as quickly as all of us started working funds surpluses ? Or had you no longer considered those issues ? replaced into it those presidents that ran up those deficits ? Or the congress ? and you're conscious that a invoice starts off in the homestead, then if it passes is going to the senate, then to the president , precise ? Somethings so you might contemplate in case you hadn't . God bless.
2016-10-18 11:46:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reducing the deficit is not erasing the deficit. During the 1990's with all the money the government took in from the stock market boom, they only paid off $60 billion of the national debt.
Believe me, we are still paying for Reagan's spending and we'll be paying for George's too, for a long time to come. Currently we're only paying interest on the national debt. You have no idea what you're talking about.
2006-10-04 06:10:19 · answer #5 · answered by jim 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sorry, I have to ask you a question. Are you really that stupid! Reagan's economic plans led to the largest deficits until the current administration.
2006-10-04 06:10:03 · answer #6 · answered by Georgi Girl 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I feel so sorry for you to actually have bought into the Rush Limbaugh line. Some day maybe you will think clearly and realize that our country has gone down the tubes under G Bush and we have to get him out of power some way.
2006-10-04 06:08:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
interesting the brilliant reagan economy kicked in under clinton isnt it?...how did it manage to skip bush sr?...
i laugh at your limited intellect..and will refer you to this website that shows how wrong you are.
feel free to respond....ill wait
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
2006-10-04 06:15:12 · answer #8 · answered by bush-deathgrip 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Take a look at the tables. They don't support your argument.
And here is a debt chart for those want to see:
2006-10-04 06:08:44 · answer #9 · answered by notme 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
oh gee are we forgetting the 6 trillion dollar debt? thought so... if China and Japan were to call in their notes how do you suggest we pay them? by selling off U.S. soil to foreign countries? yeah like i said before GET AN EDUCATION before you embarrass yourself more!
2006-10-04 06:09:47 · answer #10 · answered by lifetimefamily 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32970
2006-10-04 08:51:37 · answer #11 · answered by Pseudo Obscure 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋