English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

(Presidents in office)

2007-11-14 04:57:48 · 24 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

Republicans. But they also took down the Soviets, Taliban and Saddam.

It was worth it!

2007-11-14 05:07:52 · answer #1 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 3 4

Depends. If you look at debt incurred in years with a Republican president, and don't factor in inflation, and include all spending discretionary and otherwise, Republicans.

If you look at who controlled Congress (the branch of Government that actually has the Constitutional 'Power of the Purse), adjust for inflation, factor out extraordinary expenses like wars and disasters, and factor in future spending 'locked in,' you might not get the same result. For instance, Republicans controlled Congress through most of the Clinton years, while Democrats controlled Congress through some of the Reagan and Bush years.

If you count entitlement spending as a Democrat Thing, then all the debt incurred by our country since the New Deal is 'theirs.' Since, without entitlements, we'd have been running surpluses the whole time. But, that wouldn't exactly be fair, either, since most republicans have long since come around to supporting the New Deal entitlement programs, most notable, Social(ist) Security.

2007-11-14 05:46:40 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0 0

I do exactly not understand why Republicans are complaining about deficits and debts now. They weren't complaining about the deficits and debts at the same time as George Bush changed into president. Dick Cheney once reported Reagan proved deficits do not count number number. Now that a Democrat is interior the White abode they start up putting forward deficits and debts do count number number. i do not get it. You Republicans favor to look at different info to boot Limbaugh .

2016-10-24 05:40:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 1 0

The people who say it's the Dem's aren't supported by the facts. The biggest increases in the national debt have taken place during the Reagan and Bush II administrations, most of that is from the past 6 years. It went up During Reagan, started to go down under Clinton and then skyrocketed under the current president Bush.

2007-11-14 05:18:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

That question is going to be hard to answer without thorough research. The major wars (WW1, WW2, Vietnam) were all under democrats except for the later part of Vietnam. Now both Bush presidents were in the Iraq War but you would have to take into account inflation, etc. and the cost back then to now. There are a lot of factors you have to take into effect. Also, Jimmy Carter screwed us all royally...so that is a big hit.

2007-11-14 05:05:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.

Follow the links and make up your own mind.

2007-11-14 05:08:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

There is only one poltical party in the US. The type of "representative" government we have in the US, at least now, currently, is based on the idea that the Corporate Industrial Party represents its own interests and lobbies for these interests in Congress. The congressmen/women that are "elected" by the people are only those candidates that the CIP (Corporate Industrial Party) permits to be the candidates. Democrat and Republican have long ago ceased to be relevant when it comes to so-called "representation".

The only representation in the US now, in the advent of the New American Century, is representation for the Corporate Industrial Party which is a mixture of fringe lunatic religious symbolism, ultra-rightwing patriotism, imperialist growth coinciding with the expansion of Christianity, secret surveillance technology disguised as security measures and lastly, but more importantly, the policies effecting import, export issues and immigration.

Traditional "representation" we all learned when we were kids in public school is a thing of the distant past.

2007-11-14 05:05:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0 2

National debt is cumulative, and Clinton talked about a surplus, but that referred to the deficit, and not to the debt.

Look at John A: He uses one to describe Clinton and the other when referring to Bush. It's not a valid discussion, yet I see the same argument at least 4 other times on this question alone.

2007-11-14 05:04:32 · answer #8 · answered by Stereotypemebecauseyouknow 7 · 1 1

well seeing as how a democratic pres, balanced the budget and got us out of debt, then 2 weeks into his republican term we were already in trillions of dollars of debt..which by the way, poor book keeping is what ruined many bush ventures.. I digress. Republicans have caused more debt than money printed. That's pretty damned bad.

2007-11-14 05:09:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

This country has borrowed more under Bush than any other president (and under many other presidents conbined), but it's not limited to a single political party...it's the Congress as a whole.

2007-11-14 05:08:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Hmmm, Bush, largest national debt in the history of the United States, Clinton, last balanced budget and a budget surplus when he left office...

2007-11-14 05:02:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers