Under Bolten’s Leadership, Federal Debt Ballooned By $1.8 Trillion In 34 Months
By on Mar 28th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Under Bolten’s Leadership, Federal Debt Ballooned By $1.8 Trillion In 34 Months
$6.592 trillion: Federal debt on June 26, 2003, the day Josh Bolten became director of the Office of Management and Budget.
$8.364 trillion: Federal debt today.
In the Bush administration, this is grounds for a promotion.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
138 Responses to “Under Bolten’s Leadership, Federal Debt Ballooned By $1.8 Trillion In 34 Months”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Fortunately for Bush and his cronies, the share of the debt burden that will fall on the shoulders of the wealthiest Americans has been sharply reduced. "Compassionate" Conservatives prefer to shift the burden to middle class and poor citizens, while at the same time gutting their pensions and pulling the rug out from under their health insurance. "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers . . . ." Moral values my a**.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:51 amYes, but we are going to make it up when all of those tax cuts become permanent.
You liberals are all the same, you want the government to provide services, then you want the people who benefit most from those services to pay for them.
Sarcasm meter is now off!
March 28th, 2006 at 9:52 amSomeone here recently did that math. That's about $30K per person to pay it off.
And I don't doubt that that is exactly where they will be coming to get it.
Why are we tolerating this? We need some string Independents in November to vote the crooks and sissies who refuse to stand up to them out of office. I can't believe we are paying for this.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:55 ammake that "strong" Independents...
March 28th, 2006 at 9:55 amThey are all interchangeable. Every Bush crony is exactly like the one before. I can't figure out which country is making these dolls. I'm sure it's someplace cheap.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:58 amWhen does he get the Medal of Freedom? At this rate of spending he should get two.
March 28th, 2006 at 9:58 amDude.
Where's my 21st Century?
Goper's Lament (Hard To Be A Republican)
March 28th, 2006 at 9:58 am"doing a heckuva job Boltie......."
March 28th, 2006 at 9:58 amI can't wait until the federal deficit reaches ten trillion dollars. It's not that far away. That'll be a 'red' letter day.
No wonder they're called 'red states.'
March 28th, 2006 at 10:00 am#2 - Love the sarcasm!
It's always boggled the mind that Americans fall for the line: tax cuts! It's your money!
It ceased to be "our money" after Pres. Reagan ran up the national credit card while trying to escalate the war with the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ended up falling due to the massive debt they were racking up, Pres. Reagan changed his story to claim that was his strategy all along.
Now the time has come for America to pay back that debt that Pres. Reagan created to mythic proportions, and what does our current President want to do? Pay back the debt? No, he’s got too many rich people he has to pay off for their support. He’d rather make our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren pay the debt that he’s raised beyond the nightmares of TRUE fiscal conservatives. America is going to end up being the nation that refuses to pay their debts, and Pres. Bush is going to be remembered as the failure that brought us to this stage. What a Republican legacy!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:05 amAnother medal winner.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:09 amNever saw this until last night... if EVERY American was forced to see this info for themselves there would be riots. I have been trying to read up on all this for years now and I just now seen this info... 9 second delay indeed! That changes the timing completely!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:16 amMy husband had a "conversation" with a conservative who was complaining about taxes. My husband told him that why don't we eliminate all taxes then he could pay for his children's education through private school, when his raods needed repair he could pay to fix them himself, if someone robs his home he could take care of that himself and when a fire started in his home he could try to put it out himself. Of course, being a conservative, he backtracked and said that some taxes are ok but we should not be helping out poor or elderly people.
Again being a conservative, and so very compassionate, he did not use those terms!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:16 amJosh is a creative policy thinker. He's an expert on the budget and our economy. He's respected by members of Congress from both parties; he's a strong advocate for effective accountable management in the federal government. Comment by George Bush today.
With the trillions of debt added under Josh's watch, it just goes to show you how out of touch with reality junior really is.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:17 amWho let the attack dogs out?
March 28th, 2006 at 10:19 amOf course, being a conservative, he backtracked and said that some taxes are ok but we should not be helping out poor or elderly people.
Comment by Jules — March 28, 2006 @ 10:16 am
They also don't seem to understand the 'group discount' we get by paying taxes rather than individually paying for things. Or that some day they could be either poor or poor and old ('cause old is guaranteed :).
Lemme guess, the conservative goes to church every Sunday?
March 28th, 2006 at 10:19 amWhat's a few trillion among friends at the country club
March 28th, 2006 at 10:20 amAtta Boy Boltie you doin a heck of a job !
March 28th, 2006 at 10:24 am#16 - this guy is a true compassionate - he will not even give his own wife money. She takes care of the kids, the house, and has a part time job. She has an old car because he said if she can only have a car for which she can afford the payments.
True asshole - I mean conservative!!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:28 amWho let the attack dogs out?
Comment by ThinkProgress=Slander — March 28, 2006
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess we forgot that we're all supposed to have our noses pressed firmly up against Bush's a**hole.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:28 am#16 - this guy is a true compassionate - he will not even give his own wife money. She takes care of the kids, the house, and has a part time job. She has an old car because he said if she can only have a car for which she can afford the payments.
True asshole - I mean conservative!!
Comment by Jules — March 28, 2006 @ 10:28 am
Why would any woman tolerate such a relationship? What a selfish glutton. Someone should tell him that the Brinks truck doesn't follow the hearst...
If there is karma, his will really hurt!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:34 am#20 - Of course, anyone who dares to question Pres. Bush must HATE America! (Sarcasm)
It's too bad these same people obviously hate the first amendment, but what do you expect from those who drink the kool-aid? Certainly not original thought! They exist only to mouth the talking points, and to shout "Ditto!" and question anyone else who exercises their minds.
Pres. Bush has failed America by his lack of fiscal responsibility, his inability to protect American lives, and his disastrous national security policies that have allowed the GAO to penetrate our borders with radioactive materials. What more proof do you need that he's a failure?
March 28th, 2006 at 10:35 amI love Cheney's face in that picture. The only difference between him and a 1960's James Bond villian is that Cheney doesn't have a cat in his lap.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:36 amOff topic - if you have not seen V for Vendetta - it is a must see. Sent chills down my spine. We are witnessing the beginning of this time!!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:36 am#19 - Maybe she should start charging him for the meals he makes or telling him to make his own. The labor aint free! Change him for cleaning the house, or do it himself. The labor aint free! Change him for taking care of the kids, or he starts doing it himself. The labor aint free!
Could you imagine the bill he'd get if she charged him for her time in labor from birthin' the babies? That labor aint free either! ;-)
Tell her she needs to be a good capitalist, and that if you don't pay for it then it aint worth nothing. (Pardon my grammar, I've been living in Texas too long! ;-)
March 28th, 2006 at 10:39 amJunior's administration is organized crime, at the highest level.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:39 amWith Diebold in their pockets, they've developed an agenda that
now has them slobbering on one another deciding who
will satisfy Corporate greed faster and for a longer period of time,
with OUR taxpayer money.
When they blink, they see dollar signs.
They are thieves, amongst other things . . .
I think I'm gonna hurl.
#24 - I went to see it Sunday with my boss & his wife. He considers himself a conservative Republican, and he loved it! I guess he’s not quite as “Republican†as he’d like to think he is.
What I liked about “V for Vendetta†was the "Voice of England†had a slightly bigger drug problem than Rush Limbaugh. Not much bigger, but the "Voice" did have a larger selection of drugs to take than ‘ol Ditto head himself does! Er, I mean "did". He's supposed to be "clean" now, right? Well, that's his current spin.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:44 amBolton is just another Bush stooge butt kisser! Karl Rove is the real chief of everything in the White House, so Bolton will just be for show! Nothing is changing in the criminal Bush Regime!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:44 amThe WH can't bring in an outsider because they would need weeks to be brought up to speed on all the lies and cover-ups. Hell, they probably can't find anyone who wants ANY of these jobs! Who wants to blackmailed into remaining loyal and quiet? Who wants to risk not only their own future careers but those of children and grand-children?
March 28th, 2006 at 10:44 amGerald, your link doesn't work. Wanna try it again?
March 28th, 2006 at 10:56 am#24 - serious!!! We will use Hollywood's hate speech to blundgeon at the polls in November.
You people are HOPELESS. If you had any sense politically, you'd be dangerous.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:58 am... In the Bush administration, this is grounds for a promotion.
The bigger the crime, the more reward you receive in the Bush Administration. They are interested in two things only: Money. Power.
Money they get from draining the somewhat vast resources of the US taxpayers. Power? It's all in their heads. Maybe power comes from all those worshipping christian supporters too?
March 28th, 2006 at 11:05 amPublic debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher under Clinton. Good job of looking like idiots, TP.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:08 amBy 2010 approximately 50% of American revenues will be spent on paying the interest from our national debt.
Think about this - If you are a middle class American, even with Bush’s tax cuts, you already work at least four months out of the year for our federal government. With half of your tax revenues going to pay the interest on the national debt, and half of the national debt being held by foreign investors - that means that for at least one month out of the year each and every one of us are working for countries like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia.
Might as well send January’s paycheck directly to Beijing and get it over with.
Why don’t Democratic Representatives make a bigger point of talking about this?
IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPIDS!!!
We can win on this issue alone if we just explain it in these simple terms.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:09 am#33. National debt as a percentage of GDP grew from 35% to 65% under Bush 1 and Reagan. It FELL under Clinton to less than 60%. Under Bush 2 it has steadily grown to where it's now projected to approach 70% under OMB's 2007 budget prediction. Looks like you are the true idiot.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
March 28th, 2006 at 11:14 amPublic debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher under Clinton. Good job of looking like idiots, TP.
Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye
Have you ever looked up the definition of the word surplus?
March 28th, 2006 at 11:15 amNo, in the Bush administration, this is grounds for a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Btw, Twenty Bucks, Same as in Town.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:16 amHey there NeD. Still no friends?
March 28th, 2006 at 11:17 amThese trolls amaze me - if the facts are on your side argue the facts, if the law is on your side argue the law, if neither is on your side, lie like hell!!!
This is what these trolls are doing - no platform - lying, stealing, and corruption running rampant throughout their party, so what do they do - the same as their so called leaders!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:18 amHeck of a job!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:21 am#38 - please stop obsessing about me. It's kinda sad you are so fascinated by trolls.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:22 amWhy are people always so surprised by this? It has happened dozens of times and every time the liberal blogs and news sites are shocked!
Personally I think it should be clear by now that BUsh doesn't reward competance, he rewards loyalty and their ability to tow the line and suck up to him. He doesn't want competant people who will do their job because they would look better than he would. He wants someone who will do whatever he says without question and never bother him with any paltry details like "repercussions" or "responsibile policy."
Bush wants the deck stacked in his favour. He doesn't want competant people who may speak out against him and expose the lies behind everything he does.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:22 am#42 - it isn't that he does not reward competence - he does not recognize competence. His administration has never had it - never will!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:24 am#41 - hardly fascinated - just pretty disgusted you would still follow your presidents line of bullshit!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am#44 - better than you people's line of crap! Bush could never be as incompetent as the bumbling liars in the Dumbocratic Party!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:29 am#38 - why do you obsess over trolls?
March 28th, 2006 at 11:29 amMaybe it’s good that Bolten got the promotion?
I don't think he will be able to irrevocably harm our Country as the WH Chief of Staff as he did as the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:31 amThat's what I call a faith-based statement.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:32 amThinkProgress=Slander = Someone with nothing better to do.
Which conservative group hired you to come here and distract from the fact that the guy that got a promotion by Bush was completely incapable of doing his previous job?
That went well with the last guy, Mike Brown.
Facts:
Under Bolton's supervision:
1. Bolton is a Republican.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:33 am2. Deficit went up.
3. Debt went up.
Bob - Democrats can't even form a position on the war, let alone lead us in one. The best they can do is trash Bush and that gets old after a while.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:34 amPeople, don't let the troll distract from the fact that this is yet another example of an underqualified person getting a significant job in the Bush administration.
I'll debate with conservatives on this forum. But only if they actually use reasoning and arguments for their opinions. Not GOP talking points and silly name calling.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:37 amCurrently, there are some 8000 enlisted military personnel that have deserted the US armed forces.
They aren't buying into the freedom, liberty, sacrifice, and all of the other spin that the criminal Bush Cabal uses to further its war agenda.
They are voting with their feet.
They could care less what George Bush thinks. They're done with all of it.
Run the federal deficit up to some 20 trillion dollars. It just doesn't matter that much anymore.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:37 am#50. Hilarious that a conservative would try to argue something about leadership of a war. Bwaaahahahahahahaha!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:37 amBob - Democrats can’t even form a position on the war, let alone lead us in one.
I'm sorry. I don't call "blindly following Bush" a position. Because that's more or less the only thing the Republicans have done with regards to Bush and Iraq.
Guess what, there are more than two ways to skin a cat. And just because the Republicans are incapable of thinking for themselves and coming up with an independent thought, doesn't mean that the Democrats should be vilified for not having a singleton approach to Iraq.
The best they can do is trash Bush and that gets old after a while.
Not when he keeps providing the material.
Oh, and I'm not letting the original topic get dropped even as you continue to attempt to derail this thread:
Facts about Bolton
March 28th, 2006 at 11:41 am1. Bolton is a Republican.
2. Deficit went up.
3. Debt went up (to the tune of $1.772 trillion)
#36 - "Creepy" is "statistically" correct, but doesn't quite complete the entire picutre. He doesn't state that Pres. Bush is raising the debt as % of GDP FASTER than Pres. Clinton did, and that Pres. Bush will raise it HIGER than Pres. Clinton did!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=199
By the year 2010, if we continue to follow the failed policies of Pres. Bush, the Public Debt as a percentage of GDP will be 70%, at over 11 trillion dollars.
The higest in percentages that Pres. Clinton gave us was 67.3 in 1996, but it went DOWN from there. It has consistently INCREASED under Pres. Bush, and is projected to CONTINUE increasing!
Here are the figures:
Pres. Clinton
Year - %% of GDP
1992 - 64.1%
1993 - 66.1%
1994 - 66.7%
1995 - 67.2%
1996 - 67.3%
1997 - 65.6%
1998 - 63.5%
1999 - 61.4%
2000 - 58.0%
Pres. Bush
2001 - 57.5%
2002 - 59.8%
2003 - 62.4%
2004 - 63.7%
Projected Pres. Bush
2005 - 65.7%
2006 - 67.5% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2007 - 68.7% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2008 - 69.3% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2009 - 69.8% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2010 - 70.0% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
So much for the legacy of Pres. Bush!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:43 amYou mean to tell me that "stay the course" is not a position on the war? God, you progreaaives want everything - sound fiscal policy, a real strategy to remove our troops from harms way, leadership, personally I think you are asking too much from one idiot!
Boy my sarcasm meter is on today!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:45 am#54 - Reminds me of when the Republicans couldn't offer a sound fiscal policy under Pres. Clinton, and all they could do was slander and bash Pres. Clinton. It was a DEMOCRAT that brought American back to SURPLUS budgets, and rather than pay back the massive debt (legacy of Pres. Reagan) they've decided to bankrupt America faster than the communists did to the Soviet Union.
Oh, my, I guess now that the facts just aren't in the favor of the Republican trolls, they're going ot have to slander some more. . . . . .
March 28th, 2006 at 11:47 amLook, you won't get much of an argument from me on your first point, but the problem is that through a combination of mismanagement and short-sightedness, this administration has created a total mess in Iraq. Bush basically said in his press conference last week that the situation over there will be someone else's to clean up. It's not enough to keep telling ourselves that things will get better if we just "stay the course." As far as whether or not Democrats could lead us in a war, the fact is we simply don't know, do we? If your point is that they'd do a piss poor job of it, I guess my response is, "Probably no worse than Bush has done."
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that 10 or so years ago, conservatives had nothing better to do than trash Bill Clinton, which also got old after a while. Throughout Clinton's two terms, the right used to complain that the media wasn't negative enough about Clinton; now, they complain that there's too much negative coverage of Bush.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:51 am#31
Apparently we are dangerous, or you and your like wouldn't be here.
Oooooooo...scary liberals!
March 28th, 2006 at 11:52 amWC,
It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives--who, by the way, are in control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and who are poised to take over the Judiciary--continue to look on us liberals as a threat. I think it says a lot about (1) their own insecurities, and (2) their hardwired need to have some external enemy to demonize.
March 28th, 2006 at 11:59 am#60 - They also "cut & run" when their slanderous talking points are refuted with the facts. (Tehcnically 'libel' as they've written it, but since they refuse to remain consistent or factual. . . .)
Still no response to the facts that prove Pres. Bush has the lamest excuse for fiscal policy since they "slander" Pres. Clinton. (See my post #56)
Pres. Bush is raising the public debt faster than they claim Pres. Clinton did, and they're going to continue raising it higher and faster for the rest of Pres. Bush's term in office! Look out for 2006 to break the highest level of debt as % of GDP than Pres. Clinton ever had, with NO reduction in sight!
They're not even TRYING to reduce the public debt or the deficit! They're going to bankrupt America, and they just don't care!
March 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI am not really suprised that this turd would be made chief of staff. Bush does not tend to look to far for people, witness the harriet Meyers nomination. It has been made clear over and over again that Bush prefers loyalty over competence. He also prefers yes men who never question him or point out that he may be wrong. I believe that Bush did truly think that his pollyana view of Iraq would happen, and is probably suprised it didn't.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:04 pmDemocrat Soldier,
It's not just that they don't care, it's they don't care that they don't care. Apparently, these folks can't be bothered by a little thing like conscience.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:11 pmWhen the Soviet Union ended up falling due to the massive debt they were racking up, Pres. Reagan changed his story to claim that was his strategy all along.
Comment by Democrat Soldier #10
Democrat Soldier,
...great point...
...and NOW according to intelligence reports on Iraq...
...the Russians provided intel on American troop movements during the initial invasion...
...seems the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are going to do to us what Reagan did to the Russians in Afghanistan...
...help us WAR ourselves into insolvency and chaos...
The Bushites are TRAITORS bent on destroying America...
...you know who they are...
...they're your friends, co-workers, neighbors and family members...
...shun and ostracize them, shame them into submission...
...after what they've been responsible for, (the ascension of the TREASONOUS criminal Republiscum Party and their gods Bushiva and L'il Dick to the pinnacles of power, and ultimate disintegration of freedom and democracy), the TREASONOUS inbred Bushite heathens should be deported to the dictatorship of their choice...
March 28th, 2006 at 12:18 pmSo who is going to be the new Director of the Office of Management and Budget? I would guess someone with a lot of experience in this field........don't worry I am not holding my breath.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:19 pm#61
Agreed.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pmdlet,
The world is full of incompetants. I have no doubt that Bush will find one of them.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pmHey, Mr. "Slander", why aren't you posting anymore?
March 28th, 2006 at 12:24 pmIt has never bothered the elected Republicans when the facts weren't on their side, or that their arguments were false and the information they based them on were false or inaccurate.
Why did you "cut & run"?
Maybe "slander" got a call from the Bushies about that opening at the OMB.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:27 pm#62
The sad thing is, this is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. In one of the tapes he released in late 2004, he said it was the goal of his group to bankrupt America. We needn't worry about another terrorist attack or two destroying this country...Bush is taking care of that all on his own. So in the end, Bin Laden, unfortunately, wins.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
March 28th, 2006 at 12:29 pm#71
Oh dear. I do need to be careful in my selection of words. Wouldn't want to be portrayed as one of those nasty, dangerous, America-hating liberals who supports the enemy. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words "Bin Laden wins."
March 28th, 2006 at 12:32 pmWC,
The fact that we're posting here is evidence enough that we hate America, don't support the troops, and want the terrorists to win.
Did I leave out any other meaningless jingoistic slogan?
March 28th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#72 - The better choice of words would be "Pres. Bush bankrupts America, and NOBODY wins!"
March 28th, 2006 at 12:37 pmWC,
you forgot liberals kill babies, and want to turn everyone into homosexuals, and destroy christianity.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pmKrazny,
I can honestly say that in my 45 years on this planet, I've had far more people try to convert me to Christianity than turn me into a homosexual.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:48 pmMan, I know as a conservative I'm not supposed to agree with you guys, but when you read things like this from the article:
"he's a strong advocate for effective accountable management in the federal government."-Bush
and then things like this:
Under Bolten’s Leadership, Federal Debt Ballooned By $1.8 Trillion In 34 Months
Even my blind faith in Bush starts to falter a little bit.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pmGotta build the Military Industrial Complex Up and of course keep you in Debt.
America is Being SAPped
March 28th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#73
Bob,
Nope. I think that pretty much sums it up. Short, sweet, and to the point.
March 28th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#75
Oh. Silly me. I forgot about those. I'm having a hard time adjusting to this dangerous liberal thing. Does it show?
March 28th, 2006 at 1:03 pmOf course, being a conservative, he backtracked and said that some taxes are ok but we should not be helping out poor or elderly people.
I wonder if that Conservative thinks a Million Dollar Cruise missile to blow up an Adobe House is worth it.
He would Probably say "Yes it's worth it to kill Muslims, and not worth it to help Elderly Americans"
Is it just Me or is that the Exact Opposite of Christianity?
March 28th, 2006 at 1:06 pmSo who is going to be the new Director of the Office of Management and Budget? I would guess someone with a lot of experience in this field……..don’t worry I am not holding my breath.
Comment by dlet #66
dlet,
...good thing Zsa Zsa Gabor is retired...
March 28th, 2006 at 1:08 pmThese Pseudo Christians, the Neo-Cons, are Mercenaries of Death and lovers of Money. Satan
March 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pmWe want the MONEY! We are CHRISTIAN!
March 28th, 2006 at 1:13 pmWe want Stadiums of BLood And Gladiators!
We Want Death and Destruction!
We want Empires and Ownership!
We want Slaves!
We are BLood Cult Christians!
Aka Neo-Cons
Screw the Elderly
We want YOUNG bodies to DIE!!
--Jules
#35
National debt as a percentage of GDP grew from 35% to 65% under Bush 1 and Reagan. It FELL under Clinton to less than 60%. Under Bush 2 it has steadily grown to where it’s now projected to approach 70% under OMB’s 2007 budget prediction. Looks like you are the true idiot.
Sorry Henry, you're so gullible. Here's the data, and you zfacts source has incorrectly plotted the data on their graph. What a sucker.
As you can see national debt as a percentage of GDP under Clinton and the Democrat controlled congress was much higher than it has ever been under the Bush administration. The avg national debt as a percentage of GDP under Clinton was %43, well above the avg under Bush.
1990 %42
1991 %45.3
1992 %48.1
1993 %49.4
1994 %49.3
1995 %49.2
1996 %48.5
1997 %46.1
1998 %43.1
1999 %39.8
2000 %35.1
2001 %33.0
2002 %34.1
2003 %36.2
2004 %37.2
2005 %37.4
2006 %38.5 (ESTIMATED)
2007 %39.2 (ESTIMATED)
2008 %38.8 (ESTIMATED)
2009 %38.3 (ESTIMATED)
And take notice of how your zfacts graph lies about the projected national debt. Zfacts acrtually provides a link to this data, but they still lied not thinking that anyone would check.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#77
Glad to hear that you are not fully following Bush blindly. All I ask of my fellow Americans -- Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, conservative, dangerous liberal, etc. -- is that they take the time to question things, and to take a few minutes of their day to think. I would expect you to do the same no matter which party was in the majority. Questioning things is not a sign of weakness, and I think that's what most Republicans want America to think.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pmLet's begin with Rumsfeld himself. In 1975, he was Gerald Ford's secretary of defense when the USS Mayaguez was seized off Cambodia by the newly empowered Khmer Rouge, whose ascendance followed the destabilizing US ''incursion." The American crew of 38 was captured.
Rumsfeld shaped the response -- which was to ignore diplomacy, begin bombing a Cambodian port city, and dispatch a large force of Marines to rescue the crew. Bad moves based on bad intelligence. While untold Cambodian civilians were bombed, 40 American rescuers were killed in an attack on an island where the crew was thought to be held. In fact, the American sailors had already been released unharmed and set adrift on a Thai fishing vessel. The Mayaguez affair was a dress rehearsal for Rumsfeld's war in Iraq.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pmHeckuva Job Rummy!
March 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pmRight on #77!
March 28th, 2006 at 1:14 pmThe world is not flat, as much as the Inquisition would like you to believe.
Man, I know as a conservative I’m not supposed to agree with you guys, but when you read things like this from the article:
You see thats the main problem, most here view themselves as Soverign, Ya know Ezekiel the Bible thing? The Soverign Lord?
Yes We "Liberals" as everyone is called who doesn't follow the poltical Christianity of Bush. Great MedIa Propaganda I have to Admit, but its Just That.
See the 'Liberals' don't want you to agree with 'us' because you would not be soverign, Kapiche? Its you that must stand on his own two feet and Think for Yourself, Saper Aude.
And As you see, from your own post, no one made you AGREE with anyone. you came to that conclusion yourself =)
March 28th, 2006 at 1:24 pmAll I ask of my fellow Americans — Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, conservative, dangerous liberal, etc. — is that they take the time to question things, and to take a few minutes of their day to think
A - freakin' - men, WC.
That's what I keep saying to everyone. Stop having an opinion on something if you can't tell me why you have that opinion. Most people who are like that have been fed their opinion by someone rather than to have critically arrived at the point on their own.
Just because a politician who is the same political affiliation as you said something, doesn't make it so. Question their motivation. Question their source. Use your brain.
Squeegeboo - thank you for using yours. Keep it up.
Guess what, neo-conservatives? Do you REALLY think that Bush and the GOP is doing everything they can out of the goodness of their hearts to help you? Ha! They are motivated by money, power, and politics, not Ma and Pa Smith in Middle America.
March 28th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#86, When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon - Thomas Paine
March 28th, 2006 at 1:31 pmWho needs to form an opinion, when Rush Limbaugh can simply tell you your opinoin?
March 28th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#91
That’s what I keep saying to everyone. Stop having an opinion on something if you can’t tell me why you have that opinion. Most people who are like that have been fed their opinion by someone rather than to have critically arrived at the point on their own.
Just because a politician who is the same political affiliation as you said something, doesn’t make it so. Question their motivation. Question their source. Use your brain.
A-freakin-men back at ya!
March 28th, 2006 at 1:52 pmOMG - I am so excited. I am hated by the trolls so much they are stealing my name!
Whoever posted at #84 - Thanks - You have made my day!
March 28th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#85 - Why don't you go to the source for actual numbers of the Debt as % of GDP?
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
If you see from my post #56, Pres. Bush is expected to exceed 70% Debt as % of GDP if his failed fiscal policies are continued. much, MUCH higer than the maximum of %67.3 that Pres. Clinton had. Also, Pres. Bush never has a decline in the public debt for which he is responsible.
Pres. Clinton:
1992 - 64.1%
1993 - 66.1%
1994 - 66.7%
1995 - 67.2%
1996 - 67.3%
1997 - 65.6%
1998 - 63.5%
1999 - 61.4%
2000 - 58.0%
Pres. Bush
2001 - 57.5%
2002 - 59.8%
2003 - 62.4%
2004 - 63.7%
Projected Pres. Bush
2005 - 65.7%
2006 - 67.5% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2007 - 68.7% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2008 - 69.3% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2009 - 69.8% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
2010 - 70.0% (HIGHER THAN Pres. Clinton!)
So much for the legacy of Pres. Bush!
March 28th, 2006 at 2:16 pmEven more daming evidence that Pres. Bush is a fiscal failure:
Pres Clinton debt in 1992:
$4,064,620,655,521.66
Pres Clinton debt in 2000:
$5,674,178,209,886.86
Difference:
$1,609,557,554,365.20
Percentage increase over 8 years: %39.5992
Pres Bush debt in 2000:
$5,807,463,412,200.06
Pres Bush debt in 2006:
$8,364,078,118,387.21
Difference:
$2,556,614,706,187.15
Percentage increase over 6 years: %45.057
Pres. Bush is going to bankrupt America, and the elected Republicans don't seem to care!
March 28th, 2006 at 2:33 pmCorrection to my post #97:
Percentage increase over 6 yeras for Pres. Bush: %44.0229
My pardon, I had the wrong number in the calculation!
March 28th, 2006 at 2:34 pm#96
You're showing gross federal debt, then say that Bush has never had a decline in public debt.
You're confused. Public debt as a percentage of GDP is decreasing and is well below the avg of the Clinton administration.
March 28th, 2006 at 2:35 pmWay to go, Boltie!
March 28th, 2006 at 2:51 pm#99 -
So an increase in private debt is good?
And. therefore, Bush's fiscal policy is encouraging more people to borrow more money than they should is a good thing?
End of the day, the national debt limit is now over $9,000,000,000,000. The actual debt number is going up daily. This happened under Bush's watch.
Under Clinton's watch that national debt number was going down.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:00 pm#99 - And I'm supposed to take your word for it?
Right, and I've got some great beach front property to sell you in Florida.
Why don't you find some real numbers to back up your claim, similar to the link to the information that I showed, and we can talk. Until then, you're just pushing more bunk.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#85. Hey, moron, how about a source??
March 28th, 2006 at 3:03 pmAnd "your butt" doesn't count as a source.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#103 - It's probably some site like "Republicans are never wrong.com" or "Democrats are never right.org" or "newsmax.com".
Of course, any number or statistic or so-called "fact" that a troll references MUST be believed. It doesn't matter how partisan their sources are, they're the ones who are "right".
By that same token, any number or statistic or fact that refutes their talking-points just simply cannot be correct. Lord know's they are NEVER EVER wrong!
March 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pm#105: good assessment. I do find it amusing that the particular troll argues that my cited source is wrong, then the troll inserts some random numbers WITH NO SOURCE and those are to be believed. Of course, I could also cite the Congressional Budget Office or any number of additional sources to back the numbers I gave.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:29 pmCreepy Jackalope eye - Blind Eye'd Moron
Are you really that stupid? The Debt and GDP are well known, and easy to lookup numbers. Whatever retard did the calculation you presented should be flunked out of kindergarten!
year - DEBT - GDP - PERCENT CALCULATION
2004 - 7,379,052,696,330 - 11,735,000,000,000 - 62.9%
These numbers are very straightforward, and the claims of the reichwing on this point are just idiotic. There's no basis in fact, and the facts say they (you) are idiots.
Lets compare this debt to 1980 before Reagan really started screwing with the economy
1980 - 930,210,000,000 - 2,789,500,000,000 - 33.3%
Notice the debt to GDP is about half what it is now?
And then there's the matter of the Clinton numbers. You do realize that the Debt to GDP percent shrank under Clinton, but has risen every year under Bush don't you? When Bush came into office the numbers were:
2000 - 5,674,178,209,887 - 9,817,000,000,000 - 57.8%
I could go on, but I've proven my point - republicans can't do math, and that's why their economies always suck!
March 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pm"He's an expert on the budget and our economy," said GWB.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:37 pmShows you how much he knows. The budget is way out of control; federal debt is at record levels, but we can take comfort in knowing that an expert in this financial acumen is now going to be chief of staff for the boy king.
Bush has a very small circle of friends that he plays musical chairs with.
#107 - Now you're being mean. Comparing the lowering debt as a percentage of the GDP under Pres. Clinton to the rising debt as a percentage of the GDP under Pres. Bush.
Ryan, if I didn't agree with you more often than not, I'd say you are just trying to force the trolls into acknowledging the reality of the fiscal failures of the Republicans! How could you be so mean! They’ve gotten to used to the view through the rose-colored glasses that Pres. Bush asks all his followers to wear, and here you are, trying to wake them up to reality! For shame! ;-)
March 28th, 2006 at 3:47 pmhe might be using the numbers that factor in money made from the repeal of the tax cuts bush put into place in his first term.
See the Admin did this funny thing on their budget numbers, were projections were on our debt were based upon the federal income, with the tax cuts no longer in affect. However bush is now trying to make those tax breaks permanent.
the question being who is kidding who? Kind of like when bush said his budget looked great, when they didn't factor in the cost of the Iraq war, and medicare.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
March 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pmIt is grounds for promotion because it brings us clsoer to Armegeddon.
0
March 28th, 2006 at 5:20 pmFailing upward is SOP for this administration.
March 28th, 2006 at 6:04 pmThis is so revolting!
Yet it seems another example that supports my view that Bush promotes these guys NOT out of loyalty to them alone despite their incompetence -- but rather BECAUSE they are competent at doing what he wants them to do: Put the U.S. government in dire straits, desperation and chaos, and the desperation that makes People, in their panic, give away more and more power to corporations and privateers and profiteers. It is chilling.
"$6.592 trillion: Federal debt on June 26, 2003, the day Josh Bolten became director of the Office of Management and Budget. $8.364 trillion: Federal debt today. In the Bush administration, this is grounds for a promotion." Only conmen and scammers CELEBRATE stuff like this!!!Only when people see through this seeming incompetence to its core corruption will they be armed to take back the nation's governance from these crooks!
March 28th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#35
Public debt as a percentage of GDP was much higher under Clinton. Good job of looking like idiots, TP.
Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye — March 28, 2006
Not Gross Debt. Public Debt.
The fact that you can't distinguish by the two, some idiots even mix the two in the same argument, reveals their shallow perspective of the world. And has anyone compared our Public Debt/GDP ratio to other countries? And does anyone really understand why public debt is decreasing? Hahahahaha!
March 28th, 2006 at 10:46 pmrepublicans and big business work to bankrupt america.
liberal lawyers work to bankrupt republicans and big business
March 28th, 2006 at 11:05 pmI notice that more and more Republican Lemmings are pulling their heads out of their butts and trying to get away from the stigma of taking part in the usurping and gutting of the United States Constitution. The Bush administration has continuously lied and told half truths to the American Citizens. Tried to inject their stupid Religious logic unto the majority of us. Face it.. You TREASONOUS bastards had your first chance in 40 years and blew it. All you did was rubberstamp all the ruinous and treasonous policies these would be armchair generals put into place. Anything that comes out of these incompetent scumbags orifices are lies. You know it..I know it. . We all know it!! Kick their mangy butts out of office and start..INVESTIGATIONS, IMPEACHMENTS, and CONVICTIONS of the present and past Bush administration officials, the Republican led Senate, and the Republican led Seenate. This includes any Democrat that enabled and toadied up to the Republicans. IMPEACH and imprison the TREASONOUS SCUM!
March 29th, 2006 at 12:04 amI notice that more and more Republican Lemmings are pulling their heads out of their butts and trying to get away from the stigma of taking part in the usurping and gutting of the United States Constitution. The Bush administration has continuously lied and told half truths to the American Citizens. Tried to inject their stupid Religious logic unto the majority of us. Face it.. You TREASONOUS bastards had your first chance in 40 years and blew it. All you did was rubberstamp all the ruinous and treasonous policies these would be armchair generals put into place. Anything that comes out of these incompetent scumbags orifices are lies. You know it..I know it. . We all know it!! Kick their mangy butts out of office and start..INVESTIGATIONS, IMPEACHMENTS, and CONVICTIONS of the present and past Bush administration officials, the Republican led Senate, and the Republican led Seenate. This includes any Democrat that enabled and toadied up to the Republicans. IMPEACH and imprison the TREASONOUS SCUM!
March 29th, 2006 at 12:04 amThis article, which is actually a short series of headlines with no links to information on Bolton, is ridiculous. This is the kind of junk logic progressives need to avoid. No way could Bolton have stopped the increase in the debt. Bush hate, I am on board: stop thinking, it’s a sinking ship.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:46 am#115 - Fine, you want to play semantics, let's play.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2186.html
Now, Since the United States has PUBLIC DEBT at "64.7% of GDP (2005 est.)" now you can't really run back to your cooked numbers to try and paint Pres. Bush as anything other than FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.
As for the countries with LOWER PUBLIC DEBT AS % OF GDP THAN THE USA:
Venezuela
United Kingdom
United Arab Emirates
Ukraine
Uganda
Turkey
Tunisia
Trinidad and Tobago
Thailand
Tanzania
Taiwan
Syria
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
South Africa
Slovenia
Slovakia
Serbia and Montenegro
Senegal
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Romania
Qatar
Poland
Peru
Paraguay
Papua New Guinea
Panama
Pakistan
Oman
Norway
Nigeria
New Zealand
Netherlands
Namibia
Mexico
Mauritius
Malaysia
Macedonia
Lithuania
Libya
Latvia
Kuwait
Korea, South
Kazakhstan
Ireland
Iran
Indonesia
Iceland
Hungary
Hong Kong
Guatemala
Gabon
Finland
Estonia
El Salvador
Ecuador
Dominican Republic
Denmark
Czech Republic
Croatia
Costa Rica
Colombia
China
Chile
Bulgaria
Brazil
Botswana
Bangladesh
Bahrain
Azerbaijan
Austria
Australia
Angola
Algeria
Do you want me to list them in ascending order?
March 29th, 2006 at 8:24 am[...] In comes Josh Bolten. Never you mind that the Preznit said that a “White House shake-up” was, “inside Washington babble” - Bolten has other more glaring aptitude flaws that need your attention. As pointed out by Judd at ThinkProgress, he was put into a position where he was to manage the budget - and managed to add $1.8 trillion to it. $6.592 trillion: Federal debt on June 26, 2003, the day Josh Bolten became director of the Office of Management and Budget. [...]
March 29th, 2006 at 11:41 am#120
March 29th, 2006 at 11:47 amPublic debt, not gross federal debt. Idiot.
Recent US Treasury Report says the Gross Federal Debt is not $8 trillion, but more than $46 trillion, up from $20 trillion in 2000: Or $375,000 per FT worker!
Full quote from this US Treasury report:
"The current financial reporting model does not clearly and transparently show the wide range of responsibilities, programs, and activities that may either obligate the federal government to future spending or create an expectation for such spending. Thus, it provides a potentially unrealistic and misleading picture of the federal government’s overall performance, financial condition, and future fiscal outlook. The federal government’s gross debt* in the consolidated financial statements was about $8 trillion as of September 30, 2005. This number excludes such items as the gap between the present value of future promised and funded Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans’ health care, and a range of other liabilities (e.g., federal employee and veteran benefits payable), commitments, and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support. Including these items, the federal government’s fiscal exposures now total more than $46 trillion, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into a burden of about $156,000 per American or approximately $375,000 per full-time worker, up from $72,000 and $165,000 respectively, in 2000. These amounts do not include future costs resulting from Hurricane Katrina or the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security."
*The federal government’s gross debt consists of debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt holdings.
Federal Debt up $26 TRILLION Since Dubya Took Office !!!
March 29th, 2006 at 11:53 am#122 - Don't call me "idiot" dumb ass. Read the link, don't just knee-jerk react like a trained lemming.
The CIA calls it "Public debt (% of GDP)"
Now, go cry over your failed sematic argument. Again.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:28 pm#122 - before you BMW (bitch, moan and wail) about getting a case of the red-a$$ from a progressive on a talking point:
Public debt is defined as: The cumulatiive total of all government borrowings less repayments that are denominated in a country's home currency. Public debt should not be confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign exchange earnings.
Out of 113 listed countries, the US is #34 from the top in PUBLIC DEBT as a Percentage of GDP.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:34 pmI wonder if- once America defaults on her debt-...
...Red China will allow us to restructure our democracy under another name?
March 29th, 2006 at 12:53 pmPublic debt should not be confused with external debt, which reflects the foreign currency liabilities of both the private and public sector and must be financed out of foreign exchange earnings.
You're confused and mixing public debt with gross federal debt. There's a difference, and if you're werent' so shallow and miopic you would spend some time educating yourself on the difference. Then you might be able to figure out why public debt is less than it was in the average in the 90's and is decreasing. What a moron.
March 29th, 2006 at 1:20 pmCJE, i don't think you know what you're talking about. Imagine that I am really shallow and myopic and that I really don't know what you're talking about. Stop calling names and explain something.
March 29th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#127 - Actually, I think the moronis the one who cannot publish a link to compare Public debt as a % of GDP to "other" debt. It can only be assumed that you refuse to do this because your argument is based on false information. (If it's not, where's the proof?) I provided proof from multiple sources, you have provided nothing but your argument. Back your argument up, if you can.
Answer me this one: Is "public debt" the only debt that Americans will have to pay back?
Answer: No. All debt held by the federal government must be paid back, and the Federal Government does not generate revenue. Therefore, it's the American taxpayer who will have to "foot the bill" for all Federal debt.
Your "semantical" argument is just a way to try and cover for the failed fiscal policies of Pres. Bush.
Also, you were the one that begin calling people names. When you stop doing it, I will. Retarda-con.
March 29th, 2006 at 1:59 pmYou should really learn the difference between gross federal debt and debt held by public. This is quick summary, but the details can go on for pages. Public debt and historical tables can be found quite easily, the Budget of US Government is one place. I have a copy of it, I don't have the link but I'll find it if you're truely interested. Maybe Zfacts has it. There's numerous other places to learn about micro-economic analysis. Good luck.
Gross federal debt includes debt held by the public and Government accounts.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pmDebt to government accounts does
not have any of the economic effects of borrowing from
the public. It is an internal transaction of the Government,
made between two accounts that are both within
the Government itself. It is not a current transaction
of the Government with the public; it is not financed
by private saving and does not compete with the private
sector for available funds in the credit market; it does
not provide the account with resources other than a
legal claim on the U.S. Treasury, which itself obtains
real resources by taxation and borrowing; and its current
interest does not have to be financed by taxes
or other means.
#131 - Oh my God! I am shocked! But I do appreciate you not using such terms as "idiot", "sucker", or "moron" to describe people with which you disagree.
I'm still waiting for your link to data proving that the "public debt" is lower as % of GDP under Pres. Bush.
I've given numerous posts to information about the Public Debt, both governmental and private, and they all show the same thing: Pres. Bush has a higher % of Debt (ALL debt) in actual dollars, and as a percentage of the GDP.
I think you're being confused by the semantics of the argument by trying to separate "Public Debt" from "other debt". Don't allow others to feed you the line that things are just rosy and wonderful as we "borrow" ourselves to death.
You use the key words: "its current interest does not have to be financed by taxes
or other means". Do tell, when will it be paid back? To whom will the final bill for the "other debt" fall when it comes due? How long will our current state of "deficit spending" take for us to crawl out from underneath the "debt", both "public" and "other"?
Please, for the love of (whatever you hold dear), please provide one link, just one link, that supports your argument.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pmCJE, I agree with DS. I dont see how it's better that we "owe it to ourselves."
"And does anyone really understand why public debt is decreasing?"
Comment by Creepy Jackalope Eye — March 28, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
I don't understand this either. Please explain.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:41 pm#133 - because it's not decreasing. Don't take my word for it, check for yourself:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi
Enter in the dates for Pres. Bush's time in office, and watch how it goes up, up up.
It goes up under Pres. Clinton as well, but much MUCH slower, and if the Pres. Clinton trend had continued during Pres. Bush's term, it would be MUCH lower than it currently is.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:19 pmSo who's going to fill the role of Minister for the Rearranging of Deckchairs?
March 29th, 2006 at 11:34 pmIn numerical terms the % of increase relative to GDP may be decreasing, but this only reflects the fact that current money is becoming increasingly worthless (ie people expect more current dollars for the same item that in the past cost less, they place less value on current money). Debts are accumulated over time whereas GDP is on an annual basis. Hence, the numerator grows more slowly than the denominator because inflation biases the ratio by equating "old" and "new" dollars in the numerator, but only "new" dollars in the demoninator. Only a fool would argue that the "value" of the current dollars are the same as those in past years. If you believe that the no doubt you can easily find gasoline for 20 cents to the dollar.
One must remember that the value of money is only the common denominator of percieved values. This administration is not concerned about the size of the the debt because they don't believe its their money. As the POTUS likes to say "Its your money". Our fiscal problems won't really begin until the Chinese, British, Japanese, and Saudis begin to think "your money" isn't worth buying. When and if that happens hold on to your butt.
March 29th, 2006 at 11:58 pm[...] Bumiller reports it’s because conservatives want a new Treasury Secretary to “reassure financial markets, which are increasingly worried about record-high budget and trade deficits.” It makes sense that Josh Bolten — who oversaw a $1.8 trillion expansion of the national debt as OMB Director — would be particularly sensitive to this issue. [...]
March 30th, 2006 at 2:51 pmDebt Held by Public:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
debt/gdp ratio, less than 90's, holding steady, decreasing trend. Bueno Arbusto.
March 30th, 2006 at 5:04 pmCJE, that post links to the amount of federal debt and who holds it. there's no comparison to the GDP, and certainly no history of what it was during the '90s or how it's trending. also, there's no explanation of why it's good to borrow so much. please explain.
what about what SGP says? the reason debt/gdp is going down is because the money is worth less. that can't be a good trend.
i still think you've been listening to rush or someone and just parrotting what he said. you found this link, but you don't know what it says or what it means.
who or what is bueno arbusto? are you in some club that makes answering questions illegal?
March 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pmI have been educating a ditto head on another board concerning his lies that Clinton did not balance the budget, create surpluses and reduce the national debt in his last three or four years in office.
Here's the key point to remember when debating these clueless right wing pawns. They will ALWAYS pull up the GROSS national debt figures when they try to lie about Clinton's great economic acomplishments. They will NEVER pull up the OMB or CBO debt figures and here is why. The GROSS national debt figures include intragovernmental borrowing and all trust fund obligations. The CBO and MBO figures show only the ON budget items a president has control over including SPENDING. No president has any control at all over the federal government's trust fund obligations and therefore no president's ecnomic achievements or failures can be linked to the GROSS national debt figures. Trust fund surpluses and intragovernmental borrowing are listed as OFF BUDGET items.
Click this link.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/United-States-PUBLIC-FINANCE.html
Notice on the table that in 2003, the year used as an example, 560,812 million dollars of Social Security receipts are OFF BUDGET and 462,658 million dollars in Social Security outlays are OFF BUDGET. Off budget means just that, off budget
Pay particular attention, to the sentence above the Office of Management and Budget table which reads………….â€. In the table, the term off-budget refers to receipts and outlays that are excluded from budget totals and are not subject to Congressional budget control mechanisms, such as oversight and review..â€
“NOT SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONTROL MECHANISMS SUCH AS OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW†means the Congress and THE PRESIDENT who must work THROUGH CONGRESS HAVE NO CONTROL over OFF BUDGET receipts and outlays. If President Clinton HAD NO CONTROL over the off budget trust fund figures then OBVIOUSLY those figures can not be used to measure his budget, can they? BUT THOSE TRUST FUND FIGURES ARE INCLUDED in the gross national debt figures. Remove them from the GROSS national debt figures and you will get the CBO figures which show Clinton’s budget and which reflect the real surpluses and debt reduction he accomplished by reducing ON BUDGET government spending.
Here is a page from the Bureau of Public Debt:
Check out the years 1997 -1999 when Clinton was in office. In all three of those years the debt held by the public WENT DOWN while the gross national debt went UP. Why do you suppose that happened? It happened because the debt held by the public is the true debt, including budetary spending which presidents have control over and the gross national debt includes off budget debt the government owes itself WHICH PRESIDENTS DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER. Also notice that when Clinton left office and President “Blood for Oil†was appointed by the Supreme Court BOTH the Debt Held By the Public AND the Gross National Debt started heading STRAIGHT UP again.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
The truth about the national debt always makes republicans look tererible. That's why they ALWAYS use the Gross National Debt figures which include OFF budget debt when talking about the Clinton years.. They know the ON BUDGET figures prove what a success Clinton was compared to the miserable budget busting Repugs.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm