It is true, it is public record, so no Democrats had anything to do with it. Notice also that even though he was/is a snake around women, Bill Clinton (D) brought us out of Bush 1's & Regan's mess & in 8 years created a suplus in the treasury. Then, they voted in Bush 2, & now it is higher than it ever has been before in just 6+ years.
Glad to see someone is learning...instead of just jumping to conclusions!
2007-09-04 08:08:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by fairly smart 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
It might be true in nominal dollars. There was a bout of hyperinflation in the 70s, and low-grade inflation through most of the rest of the post-Depression era, so debts accrued in the 80s and later constitute more dollars than those acrued earlier, even though they may not have purchased a lot more. Reagan, Bush & Bush jr also had the misfortune of assuming office in troubled times (the final 'battles' of the Cold War, Iraq, recession, 9/11, Iraq again), and undertook massive spending as a result, while refusing to raise taxes. That leaves big debts. The only Democrat in the Whitehouse since Carter, Clinton, happened to assume office just at the country has exited a recession, and after the end of the Cold War - between slashing the military ('peace dividend') and a robust growth in tax revenues based on the dot-com bubble economy, even he couldn't manage to build on the debt. But the 90s were a nearly-unique time in modern American history, and aren't likely to repeat...
2007-09-04 08:30:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Lol, that is 3 presidents so as that is 3 trillion apiece in 24 years. Obama first couple of weeks gonna improve that by using yet another a million.3 trillion with the stimulus plan, ok.How plenty is the invoice introduced on Monday or Tuesday to restore Banks and massive agencies gonna be? 500 billion, seven-hundred billion, a million trillion? So enable's see in decrease than 2 month's, Obama is finding to spend 2 trillion are extra. So if he keeps spending like this Obama is finding at 6 trillion a twelve months situations 4 is 24 trillion earnings one term, wish he breaks the checklist.
2016-10-17 22:43:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by koltay 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
National Debt History (Graph): White House data show the gross national debt hit a 47 year low just as President Reagan was taking office. It climbed steadily under Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, declined under Clinton and made a quick U-turn under G. W. Bush.
The Gross Deficit vs. the political Deficit Lite The real deficit remains near its peak and over half a trillion $ per year.
National Debt Clocks: The Gross National Debt is over $8 trillion and climbing. More than $1.5 trillion of the debt is owed to the Social Security trust fund and indirectly to those who have paid their FICA taxes.
Presidential Contributions to the Gross National Debt: The gross federal debt now stands at 63.5% of GDP. Of that, 33.5 percentage points were contributed by Reagan-Bush, 6 points by G. W. Bush, and 6.1 points by printing money. The remaining 18 points are left over from WWII.
An Introduction to the Debt Problem (PDF): President Reagan came to power claiming the trillion-dollar national debt was the country's central problem. He then proceeded to double it. President Bush has predicted he will set a 50 year debt record—if re-elected.
2007-09-04 08:09:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by TNGal 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
It might be true. Both administration with their policy of putting financial burden on middle class and favoring riches, brought the economy to the poor state. They either initiated a recession or, if to admit that recession happened by itself, made a recession much more sever. And economic decline always leads to higher debt. Republicans support less government, however they never follow their own principals. They keep spending in high level but recklessly decrease the main source of government income, taxes. How to resolve this issue? To print more money, or to increase national debt. Let future generations pay that debt.
2007-09-04 08:12:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Stanislav B 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Funding for the military industrial machine. In 1961 when Eisenhower gave his farewell address he warned the people about not letting people into power who can benefit financially from the Great Military Industrial machine. These people manufacture war and fear of a loss of freedom to justify excessive industrial contracts. Hence the nuclear arms race, Grenada via the Reagan Admin.. Iraqi Bush Sr. and Jr. did you know that before Dick Chaney was elected V.P. he was founder of Halldenburg Co. (a military Industrial company).. He claims that he no longer is involved with his company. However his bank account has grown from 1.7 Mil. to over 67 mil. since the start of the war. A good documentary is now on on demand (encore channel) titled "Why We Fight I suggest you watch it. It explains how the war was fabricated for the hidden agenda of feeding the military's private sector.
Hey B. Kervorkan everything you say is true, however you make it seem as if their admin. was victim to those circumstances. I suggest you read my paragraph.
2007-09-04 09:03:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's true. The GOP is the party of Fiscal Responsibility! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There's a LOT more than just military spending involved here.
And Bin Laden believes it was the Afghanistan War that caused the Soviet Union to collapse. It's his "bleed to bankruptcy" strategy that he's using on us now in Iraq. And we played right into his hands.
By the way, Big Jon (below), if you want to bring up the Clinton years, he not only eliminated the deficit, but he started paying down the National Debt. Bush could have kept it up and we could have been free by now (or soon) free of the over $250 billion we have to pay in interest just to keep it afloat. Much of it owed to Arabs or the Chinese.
BUT NO-O-O!!! Bush HAD to have a big giveaway for the rich!
2007-09-04 08:02:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
I see you read Doonesbury.
And while that may be true consider this. Every dollar the government spends must be appropriated by CONGRESS. Only then is it signed by the President.
Since it appears you are too young to have taken GOV 101 or maybe you failed the course because you were too busy studying campusology and female anatomy by braille, I'll enlighten you.
The President submits a budget proposal to Congress. Congress is free to make any and all changes needed or un-needed in every item. After that runs through both houses of Congress where changes galore take place it is sent on to the President. The President can make no changes in the budget as approved by Congress. He can sign it or he can veto it.
Do some research (you can do it on the net it won't take long) and find out how many year Democrats controlled the Congress and how many years THEY had balanced budgets.
2007-09-04 08:17:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
Isn't it convenient how the eight years of Bill Clinton are conveniently omitted from the time frame? His so-called "surpluses" came from smoke and mirror tricks with budgetary analyses that wouldn't survive the light of day under any true audit, like a company would have to undergo from the FTC or it's own shareholders.
I don't there is such a thing as a "fiscally responsible" politician, so it's hard to blame any one person in particular.
Also, don't forget that all the president can do is submit his request for an annual budget. It's the Congress that writes and approves the budget and spends your tax dollars. All pork-barrel spending attachments originate in Congress.
2007-09-04 08:08:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
Well I didn't bother to make the percentages but here is all the gory data and it certainly looks like that 70 % is a "keeper" after having looked at the first graph on this URL:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
2007-09-04 08:08:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋