fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Bush is not a conservative. He never was.

He's a whore to the special interests. He always has been. That ideally isn't what conservatism is all about.

Of course, the last real conservative to run for the Presidency was Goldwater.

The president doesn't spend money, congress does. You could build the same graph for who controlled congress at the time to sell the opposite viewpoint.

United Stated National Debt (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)

The president set the policies and economy. Above link explains more taking into account congress.

fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Keep in mind republicans were in control of congress this entire time.


Apparently you dont recall too much of bush's high-flyin plans he slid through the system and his famous "and congress is gonna have to find a way to pay for it" speeches.

In 95 through 06? An unsustainable economic boom based off of tech stocks, which then crashed just before Clinton left office, followed by 9/11, which led to increased deficit spending to fund two wars.

All this talk of "lockbox" in the 2000 election didn't matter, because the surplus disappeared as soon as people realized the internet wasn't a license to print free money.

Route66gal, you really need to find a better website to swipe your graphics from, because the one you posted (in addition to being fairly childish), uses quite a few terms incorrectly and isn't particularly accurate. While it claims to be a measure of the "national debt", it's really charting the federal deficit, which is something different. If you want to look intelligent and post a clever graphic, it helps to use one that doesn't get its terms wrong.

fire121,

So what happened in 1995-2006 then??? According to the chart, the debt was starting to come back down (before repubs took over congress) and retained that path during the clinton term...then right when W came in...BAM! Started going right back up. And WAY up!

Keep in mind republicans were in control of congress this entire time.


Apparently you dont recall too much of bush's high-flyin plans he slid through the system and his famous "and congress is gonna have to find a way to pay for it" speeches.

Exactly. if Gore had been president the debt would near be payed off because he would have kept things the way Clinton had them.

The president no matter what people try to claim is who sets these things in motion via economic policy. The republicans use trickle down which crashes the economy every time they have used it.

In 95 through 06? An unsustainable economic boom based off of tech stocks, which then crashed just before Clinton left office, followed by 9/11, which led to increased deficit spending to fund two wars.

All this talk of "lockbox" in the 2000 election didn't matter, because the surplus disappeared as soon as people realized the internet wasn't a license to print free money.

Route66gal, you really need to find a better website to swipe your graphics from, because the one you posted (in addition to being fairly childish), uses quite a few terms incorrectly and isn't particularly accurate. While it claims to be a measure of the "national debt", it's really charting the federal deficit, which is something different. If you want to look intelligent and post a clever graphic, it helps to use one that doesn't get its terms wrong.

all data is from the government sites on that chart, try again. wrong.
Government - Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD) and Downloadable Files (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm)

here try this

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.jpg

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image006.jpg


Still think republicans are the ones fiscally responsible? LOL The above charts are even old, bush would be OFF the chart even before the bailout by now.

If you want to look intelligent and post a clever graphic, it helps to use one that doesn't get its terms wrong.

I say if you want to win a debate or have any of your argument carry weight, you'd better have more facts than just 'here say'. So where is your map? I say if you want to look intelligent you'd better post a correct version. eh? eh? ...and how many terms could it have wrong? All it says is 'increases in the national debt' with a president named above each year. Is there some disappearing ink I'm not seeing?

hoya, so obviously the dot com boom was created by private co's that were startups and were given tons of capital from private co's and they blew through it like candy...that has nothing to do with the president. What does have to to with the president is that post-9/11 when Bush decided to "fund two wars", he went on a spending spree, giving no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton who could (and DID) charge us insane prices for every line item, and the republican congress didn't even try to stop him. You're telling me that in over 5 years of a war there was no time to send any major contracts out to bid??? please...that could have done that from day one, but that wasn't the agenda.

And before anyone trys to blame Carter. The Vietnam War debt was added to the national deb under him- was paid off which added to inflation in which the Fed hoped to stop by tightening the money flow, which hit harder than they thought it would. But Reagan saw this as a chance to blame carter and use trickle down to start his very own recession which added 200% to the national debt. More than ALL democrats combined ever did at the time. So with this truth in hand its very likely our current mess is our war debt. Because Inflation is caused by printing money / national debt. Thanks repubs!! Man that war and trickle down voodoo economics really does wonders!!

route66gal,

nice charts...without getting into a long debate, Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida, if the supreme court hadn't have steeped in and the state wouldn't have rushed to get a quick answer.

Thats neither here nor now now, though. Just thought I'd point it out.

Sgray, Route66gal, the chart wasn't labeled properly. End of story.

Sgray, even the recounts that were conducted by local Florida newspapers long after the Supreme Court ruled showed Bush winning.

And you're right that the dot com bust had nothing to do with the President. Neither did the dot com boom. But you wanted to know why we went from no deficit to a big one, and that's why.

Whether Bush's decision to wage two wars was good or bad doesn't matter when we're talking about why the deficit got bigger. We KNOW why it got bigger -- there's no question.

Now, I'm not a fiscal conservative, so I don't really care that it grew. Most of our economic policies and institutions are based upon the US running a near continuous deficit. It isn't like having a credit card that you need to pay off before you retire -- we're talking about a nation's fiscal policy, not household budgeting.

route66gal,

nice charts...without getting into a long debate, Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida, if the supreme court hadn't have steeped in and the state wouldn't have rushed to get a quick answer.

Thats neither here nor now now, though. Just thought I'd point it out.

I agree and know :)

We as a people should not have allowed this especially since florida was under Jeb Bush. UGH! Cons!

No, no, its not the "end of story" until you prove your point...till then the facts as presented are assumed to be true. And I don't see anything mislabeled.

One major problem I have with your reply on the deficit (then debt) is that you blew past my argument on the fact that bush sent out no-bid contracts for the wars! That contributed heavily to the eventual debt! Not as much the wars as the NO-BID contracts. When we're paying 800% (not official) over what's something's worth, thats a big problem and it's one that bush purposely disregarded and that's why I attribute a lot of this problem directly to him. His bad decisions made a huge dent in leading us here.

Sgray, Route66gal, the chart wasn't labeled properly. End of story.

Sgray, even the recounts that were conducted by local Florida newspapers long after the Supreme Court ruled showed Bush winning.

And you're right that the dot com bust had nothing to do with the President. Neither did the dot com boom. But you wanted to know why we went from no deficit to a big one, and that's why.

Whether Bush's decision to wage two wars was good or bad doesn't matter when we're talking about why the deficit got bigger. We KNOW why it got bigger -- there's no question.

Now, I'm not a fiscal conservative, so I don't really care that it grew. Most of our economic policies and institutions are based upon the US running a near continuous deficit. It isn't like having a credit card that you need to pay off before you retire -- we're talking about a nation's fiscal policy, not household budgeting.

You cant handle facts, but FYI you should be worried about the deficit because it creates INFLATION which causes the economy to go south.
Just say it, you cant handle Clinton succeeded. And Bush has failed. LOL Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs on average than Reagan and added less to the debt.

:LolLolLol

Sigh.

The graph should be labeled as increases in the federal deficit. While the numbers are related to the national debt, at no point are the numbers for the national debt shown. This is a graph of the deficit from year to year, as evidenced by the crudely drawn red and blue arrows pointing "up" and "down". If it was a chart of the debt, you'd have red and blue arrows pointing "up" and "up", because the debt itself has continuously increased since roughly 1776. It's a bad chart.

As far as who "really" won Florida, I'll direct you to information from that bastion of conservative journalism, the LA Times.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/27/news/mn-30743

Well, one thing is for sure. While other presidents may have been able to fail and not take the country with them, Obama doesn't have that option. He HAS to turn this thing around.

You know, one thing I was just thinking back to is that, you know how in 2000 and 2004, Karl Rove was supposedly this "mastermind architect" to win elections...and look at how much margin Obama won with. He got almost 8.5m more votes than McCain. And in Rove's last couple of elections, they did not get that kind of result...in fact it was pretty close. Interesting.

You cant handle facts, but FYI you should be worried about the deficit because it creates INFLATION which causes the economy to go south.
Just say it, you cant handle Clinton succeeded. And Bush has failed. LOL Even Jimmy Carter created more jobs on average than Reagan and added less to the debt.

:LolLolLol

Yeah, we really suffered from terrible inflation under Reagan.

The deficit is the basis for US Treasury Bonds. Without those, investors don't have a safe place to flee when the stock market gets rocky. Want to know where most of grandma's retirement is saved? US Treasury Bonds. Want to know where junior's college fund is invested? US Treasury Bonds. Want to know the safest, most stable, most trusted investment in the whole damn world? The one where investors went when oil prices began falling? The one where foreign investors went when asian stocks crashed in the 90s? You got it.

A deficit helps create liquidity in an economy. As long as your deficit doesn't get out of hand, it helps stimulate economic growth. There's a reason we've run a deficit continuously for 200+ years and yet have the largest and most powerful economy in the world.

I linked you to the gov source where the numbers comes from, the chart is not misleading in anyway.

I also linked you to an article I am sure you did not read. Im sorry you are in such denial, what a sad place to be.

United Stated National Debt (http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)


Starting in 1977 President Carter tried to control government spending even during inflationary times. The national debt increased an average of 9% per year while he was in office, and his policies eventually brought inflation under control with the help of a semi-cooperative Democratic Congress. He was thrown out of office after one term for making and implementing the hard decisions required to cut spending and deal with the energy crisis. (Had we followed his policies all these years we would not be dependant on foreign oil as we are now under Republican leadership.)

As President Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself[7]. Many on the right reflexively blame the Democratically controlled Congress for the “big spending” during his administration, even though Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender and government grower.

The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

George Bush Sr. meekly followed in Reagan’s shadow after his election in 1988, by increasing the debt on average a mere 11.8% a year during his four years as President. In his last year in office he quite responsibly worked with Democrats to raise taxes to help reduce the massive yearly increases in the national debt. This bipartisan plan got the growth down to under 11% in 1992, but it was too little too late and didn’t make much difference in the overall trend. The Neo-Conservatives controlling the Republican Party rewarded him for putting the nation’s future above his party’s ideology by throwing him out of office even though it had hardly been a year since he was credited with winning the Gulf War.

In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased.

When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8]. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has typically been around $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

Well, one thing is for sure. While other presidents may have been able to fail and not take the country with them, Obama doesn't have that option. He HAS to turn this thing around.

You know, one thing I was just thinking back to is that, you know how in 2000 and 2004, Karl Rove was supposedly this "mastermind architect" to win elections...and look at how much margin Obama won with. He got almost 8.5m more votes than McCain. And in Rove's last couple of elections, they did not get that kind of result...in fact it was pretty close. Interesting.

Obama's victory wasn't a landslide by any means, if you're speaking purely about the popular vote. He got between 52 and 53%. Enough to win, certainly, but he's no Reagan, or even Johnson.

Rove's flaw was that his strategy pissed people off. Democrats felt cheated and eventually got angry enough to turn out to the polls in sufficient numbers in battleground states. In effect, Rove was eating the seed corn to secure an election.

Hoya, the chart does say increases in national debt and shows the changes year by year. Clearly, anything not included in the budget and/or paid for by tax collections becomes debt. This shows the contributions to the actual debt year-by-year. Do you think the total debt in 2000 was just $18b??? Of course not. It is showing the changes in the debt by what was not covered by budget and/or tax collections.

Sigh.

And on the 2000 vote, you provide me with an article written by a conservative news organization, and not only that, the article was written before anyone really got to study the numbers...the president had just taken office when that article was written!

Sigh.

No, I didn't read it because I don't read analysis from extreme political websites (from either party). I have a degree in political science, I remember the 80s and 90s, I don't need anyone to explain it to me, especially an article like this that looks at history with blue-tinted glasses. Interesting how the Republican Revolution of 1994 and the Contract With America get no mention.

Yeah, we really suffered from terrible inflation under Reagan.

The deficit is the basis for US Treasury Bonds. Without those, investors don't have a safe place to flee when the stock market gets rocky. Want to know where most of grandma's retirement is saved? US Treasury Bonds. Want to know where junior's college fund is invested? US Treasury Bonds. Want to know the safest, most stable, most trusted investment in the whole damn world? The one where investors went when oil prices began falling? The one where foreign investors went when asian stocks crashed in the 90s? You got it.

A deficit helps create liquidity in an economy. As long as your deficit doesn't get out of hand, it helps stimulate economic growth. There's a reason we've run a deficit continuously for 200+ years and yet have the largest and most powerful economy in the world.

Oh there you go again :doh: Reagan waged a WAR on the poor and middle class ,disabled of this country sending millions of disabled and veterans into homelessness.

The only reason inflation was 'less' for a bit under him is because the FED loosened the money flow that they tightened under Jimmy in order to get a handle on it (under jimmy). You really should learn the facts before you type anything.

Hoya, the chart does say increases in national debt and shows the changes year by year. Clearly, anything not included in the budget and/or paid for by tax collections becomes debt. This shows the contributions to the actual debt year-by-year. Do you think the total debt in 2000 was just $18b??? Of course not. It is showing the changes in the debt by what was not covered by budget and/or tax collections.

Sigh.

And on the 2000 vote, you provide me with an article written by a conservative news organization, and not only that, the article was written before anyone really got to study the numbers...the president had just taken office when that article was written!

Sigh.

Sigh.

The numbers shown are deficit numbers. The chart should be labeled "changes in the federal deficit". That's the proper form. Of course I know the debt wasn't 18 billion. That's why I said she needed to pick a better graphic next time, because while the overall information was drawn from Treasury Dept numbers, the chart was created by a half wit who doesn't know the proper form.

The article came from the LA Times (hardly a conservative paper -- your sarcasm meter is clearly broken), reporting the hand recount by the Miami Herald (hardly a conservative paper) and the Palm Beach Post (whom I've never heard of). The hand recounts were done immediately following the election, and to my knowledge, are the only full hand recounts of every ballot that took place.

Sorry. Bush won. It's been 8 years. Accept it.

I did pick another chart with more data from a government source which you have not commented on LOL.

Oh there you go again :doh: Reagan waged a WAR on the poor and middle class ,disabled of this country sending millions of disabled and veterans into homelessness.

The only reason inflation was 'less' for a bit under him is because the FED loosened the money flow that they tightened under Jimmy in order to get a handle on it (under jimmy). You really should learn the facts before you type anything.

War on the poor and middle class, which is why standard of living increased under Reagan. Right.

You keep repeating left wing talking points. That doesn't make them true.

You aren't old enough to remember stagflation under Carter. You don't remember long lines for gas. Carter's monetary policies were asinine. Liquidity in the market is GOOD. You should really look at why the US economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. And then it grew again under Clinton, who was politically savvy enough to go with the flow and cooperate with the Republican Congress from 94 until he left office (hell, Clinton was almost a Republican when it came down to it).

I did pick another chart with more data from a government source which you have not commented on LOL.

Because that chart was directly from a government source, and it was done properly. Good chart.

Good night all. It's been fun, but I've got lots of turkey to eat tomorrow, and then I've got to root for Texas to lose. Gotta save up my strength. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Whats more you think you know so much and have to flaunt your education?
What kind of degree, how many years, where from, do you work in the field, how long? I probably have more of an education in this area than you do.

War on the poor and middle class, which is why standard of living increased under Reagan. Right.

You keep repeating left wing talking points. That doesn't make them true.

You aren't old enough to remember stagflation under Carter. You don't remember long lines for gas. Carter's monetary policies were asinine. Liquidity in the market is GOOD. You should really look at why the US economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. And then it grew again under Clinton, who was politically savvy enough to go with the flow and cooperate with the Republican Congress from 94 until he left office (hell, Clinton was almost a Republican when it came down to it).

How old do you think I am? I have a picture of me with Ford. What about you? LOL

I already explained to you that the Carter problem was the debts from the WAR being PAID OFF under him and attached to the national debt. The bills came due. Inflation was up BECAUSE of the WAR DEBT.

Hoya,

Obama won 53% to McCain's 46% at last check. It has not been like that in the last two elections. In 2000, the results were less than 1% apart. In 2004, it was only like 3% apart. 53% to 46% is pretty dang good. And the extra approx 8.5 million votes that Obama got, gave him way more buffer than either of the last two election had.

Sigh.


On the chart, oh man...proper form??? Check out the fact that the folks that wrote the chart wanted us to see what was dropped into the debt piggy bank after all is said and done. And that $18 billion in change in 2000 is correct debt change. Are you ready for this: Their chart was created to represent the changes in the debt over the last many years. Each year shows the changes in debt as reported by the federal government. The chart was not created to report deficit, it was created to report on the DEBT. And it does just that. The chart, as presented, is correct in that it reports the changes in debt. Just because you dislike the way the chart presents it's data doesn't make it incorrect.

Sigh.

On the newspaper, I can't believe that you would have presented a newspaper article as evidence.

Sigh.

Oh, and Republican Revolution and Contract with America... DUDE, I would LOVE to debate that with you. You'll have to start another thread though.

Hoya,

Obama won 53% to McCain's 46% at last check. It has not been like that in the last two elections. In 2000, the results were less than 1% apart. In 2004, it was only like 3% apart. 53% to 46% is pretty dang good. And the extra approx 8.5 million votes that Obama got, gave him way more buffer than either of the last two election had.

Sigh.


On the chart, oh man...proper form??? Check out the fact that the folks that wrote the chart wanted us to see what was dropped into the debt piggy bank after all is said and done. Are you ready for this: Their chart was created to represent the changes in the debt over the last many years. Each year shows the changes in debt as reported by the federal government. The chart was not created to report deficit, it was created to report on the DEBT. And it does just that. The chart, as presented, is correct in that it reports the changes in debt.

Sigh.

On the newspaper, I can't believe that you would have presented a newspaper article as evidence.

Sigh.

:congrats:

I do remember the long lines for gas...and I remember going with my mom to get gas very early in the morning under the Reagan administration, because they ran out before the day was half through. Prices were high too.

Hoya points to "good times" under the reagan administration...the debt doesn't lie. It's easy to have a party if you go let a loan for lots of cash!!! I could go by a multi-million dollar mansion and some nice cars as long as I can get a cash loan. At some point, I'd have to deal with the reality of paying for it, which is what is happening now.

----

You're done debating...that's cool.

Good "debate form", sir or ma'am...you've managed to call debaters tonight unintelligent, not old enough to understand, and tout your education as a basis for your argument.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

I do remember the long lines for gas...and I remember going with my mom to get gas very early in the morning under the Reagan administration, because they ran out before the day was half through. Prices were high too.


right...

of course he ran off when proved wrong.... typical.

War on the poor and middle class, which is why standard of living increased under Reagan. Right.

You keep repeating left wing talking points. That doesn't make them true.

You aren't old enough to remember stagflation under Carter. You don't remember long lines for gas. Carter's monetary policies were asinine. Liquidity in the market is GOOD. You should really look at why the US economy grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan. And then it grew again under Clinton, who was politically savvy enough to go with the flow and cooperate with the Republican Congress from 94 until he left office (hell, Clinton was almost a Republican when it came down to it).

It's you who keeps repeating republican talking points.

Reagan is God, he made the rich richer. Recession Reagan? Blame it on Jimmy!! Homeless what homeless? Rinse and repeat :rolleyes:

Just in case you guys forgot the election was over weeks ago.

I think it might be time for some of you to block out the cable news channels, turn off talk radio, block out the political blogs and websites.

Go have some fun. The holidays are here make them meaningful. Take road trip. Visit with your family. Take the girlfriend/boyfriend out for a night on the town. Take in a few games. NBA, NFL, NCAA are all their ripe for the picking. Do something before you have to be committed to the insane asylum.

are you the same one that I see putting "off topic" billboards up everywhere?