For Us Fiscally Conservative Republicans

[Hap]

Lead sentence: WASHINGTON - Whatever happens over the next 16 months, President Bush will leave office having presided over one of the fastest accumulations of government debt in the history of the United States.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p01s02-usec.html

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Hap
Lead sentence: WASHINGTON - Whatever happens over the next 16 months, President Bush will leave office having presided over one of the fastest accumulations of government debt in the history of the United States.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p01s02-usec.html

Oh, i'm sure he can fix everything in 16 months....

The thing is, he also leaves a whole heap of other problems on the desk of his successor. Which will get worse, before they get better.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Hap
Lead sentence: WASHINGTON - Whatever happens over the next 16 months, President Bush will leave office having presided over one of the fastest accumulations of government debt in the history of the United States.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p01s02-usec.html

Yes I'm sure he will somehow convince his followers it was Al Gores fault. Just like everything else is.

[Ripsnort]

[Sabre]

Come now, Rip...you know better than to confuse the issue with fact.  Very disappointed in you.   The next thing you know, you'll be telling people that man is not responsible for "climate change" (hehe, see, I read your sig).

[Laurie]

Fighting in at least 2 countries doesnt come cheap.

[Curval]

That graph represents debt as a percentage of GDP.  

try this link:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

It also has the figures all the way to 2007.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Sabre
Come now, Rip...you know better than to confuse the issue with fact.

What facts?
The first three spikes were due to extraordinary circumstances - WWI, '30s depression and WWII. The debt was mostly domestic.

Next significant rise started with Reagan until Clinton reversed the trend.
Bush Jr. f***ed it up again.

The big difference now is that we borrow from abroad (mostly). Bad bad thing...

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Curval
That graph represents debt as a percentage of GDP.  

try this link:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

It also has the figures all the way to 2007.

Ah, ya...it says that right on the chart...

So, when it exceeds 100%, then you're in trouble. Right now we're at about 60%.

And your link, read it, that guys not bias or partisan at all, is he.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ah, ya...it says that right on the chart...

So, when it exceeds 100%, then you're in trouble. Right now we're at about 60%.

And your link, read it, that guys not bias or partisan at all, is he.

lol

Yes, it does say that.  It is NOT a measure of the increase in debt under a given president, which is what was stated.

I noticed the link I put down is very anti-Bush, but if his figures are correct you can ignore everything else the guy wrote.  At least the guy is more on topic than your graph.

....and your not bias or partisan either, right?

[crockett]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
What facts?
The first three spikes were due to extraordinary circumstances - WWI, '30s depression and WWII. The debt was mostly domestic.

Next significant rise started with Reagan until Clinton reversed the trend.
Bush Jr. f***ed it up again.

The big difference now is that we borrow from abroad (mostly). Bad bad thing...

Hey now don't confuse the actual facts with the issue at hand, because it's Al Gores fault because he want's to sell books.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
What facts?
The first three spikes were due to extraordinary circumstances - WWI, '30s depression and WWII. The debt was mostly domestic.

Next significant rise started with Reagan until Clinton reversed the trend.
Bush Jr. f***ed it up again.

The big difference now is that we borrow from abroad (mostly). Bad bad thing...

Is there a Trend Chart 101 class that Bighorn can attend...?

Edit: Oh I see, you looking at the trend downward, when the Tech sector took off, and more taxes were rolling in to force the trend downward. There wasn't anything that Clinton did that caused that. Or was there?  Oh yeah, Congress in 1994..Deal with America or something like that.  He didn't veto it.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
He didn't veto it.

Neither did Reagan/Bush/Bush veto all the fiscally conservative spending bills.

Point is, in Washington DC, "Fiscally Conservative" doesn't mean less spending but more spending of $$ for greedy guys who were trained in spending and know how to spend $$ faster than anybody else.