Misery index the highest in 28 years

[edthecynic]

What exactly did the GOP do to get us in this mess?
put your reasons on the table

you think the deficit prior to 2008 was a problem?

You think we can fight 2 wars without having debt?

What exactly is it that the failed stimulus as well as HO use of tarp with his health care reform bill that we cannot pay for don't you get?

All I ask of all Liberals is examples
accurate and supported with links
like this one
Defending the Reagan Deficits | The Heritage Foundation

This is a Commentary On
Federal Budget Defending the Reagan DeficitsPublished on June 16, 2004 by Brian Riedl Print
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?

Coverage of President Reagan's legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, "Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits." Or "America needed Reagan's infectious optimism … but those budget deficits."

Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today's dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

The only thing more stupid than believing anything from the radical Heritage Foundation, is believing anything from the Russian Foreign Minister! Of course he is going to say St Ronnie's deficit spending was good because he wants it to continue to the destruction of the US.

Reagan's deficit spending had nothing to do with the USSR, it was all about destroying this country!

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

 

[JRK]

What exactly did the GOP do to get us in this mess?
put your reasons on the table

you think the deficit prior to 2008 was a problem?

You think we can fight 2 wars without having debt?

What exactly is it that the failed stimulus as well as HO use of tarp with his health care reform bill that we cannot pay for don't you get?

All I ask of all Liberals is examples
accurate and supported with links
like this one
Defending the Reagan Deficits | The Heritage Foundation

This is a Commentary On
Federal Budget Defending the Reagan DeficitsPublished on June 16, 2004 by Brian Riedl Print
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?

Coverage of President Reagan's legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, "Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits." Or "America needed Reagan's infectious optimism … but those budget deficits."

Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today's dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

The only thing more stupid than believing anything from the radical Heritage Foundation, is believing anything from the Russian Foreign Minister! Of course he is going to say St Ronnie's deficit spending was good because he wants it to continue to the destruction of the US.

Reagan's deficit spending had nothing to do with the USSR, it was all about destroying this country!

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

There is an item called a source
both of those links provide a source as to where the data came from
now you can choose to ignore it, as you have
but it does not take away its accuracy

Providing information that is accurate is my intent, not the source
I find it inter sting that have not provided any link showing this information to be not accurate

Let me add
lying about GWB for 8 years finally got you the white house. To continue to lie is not going to work again
Deficit spending during 2 wars was expected. Congress approved both wars by a large margin
adding 1 trillion to the deficit calling it a shovel ready stimulus that bailed out unions only was not
these are facts

 

[Nunyadb]

You know something ?
I haven't heard the term "Misery Index" for a whole lot of years now.

From all indications, it's just going to get worse over the next year.
Re-doubling on stupid things just makes for worse results, not better.

Me, I'm just gonna sit back and watch it all fall apart.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ignoring our terrible problems will not make them go away. The Democrats just want to ignore and pass these terrible problems onto future generations. Is that the right thing to do? I'll let you decide that for yourselves.

If you think putting the Republicans back in power is going to result in the GOP taking the tough, politically toxic measures needed to straighten out our fiscal situation you are delusional.

Put the GOP back in power and the first thing they'll do is exacerbate our fiscal situation by cutting taxes even further, digging that revenue hole even deeper and making the hard spending cut choices even harder.

 

[Nunyadb]

I really gotta ask, what's wrong with simply cutting spending ?

If you don't have money in your own checking account, you don't write checks do you ?

If we have to tighten our belts, I see nothing wrong with Congress having to tighten theirs.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Thanks Dumbya Bush!

 

[edthecynic]

What exactly did the GOP do to get us in this mess?
put your reasons on the table

you think the deficit prior to 2008 was a problem?

You think we can fight 2 wars without having debt?

What exactly is it that the failed stimulus as well as HO use of tarp with his health care reform bill that we cannot pay for don't you get?

All I ask of all Liberals is examples
accurate and supported with links
like this one
Defending the Reagan Deficits | The Heritage Foundation

This is a Commentary On
Federal Budget Defending the Reagan DeficitsPublished on June 16, 2004 by Brian Riedl Print
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Email
More
Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?

Coverage of President Reagan's legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, "Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits." Or "America needed Reagan's infectious optimism … but those budget deficits."

Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today's dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.

Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

The only thing more stupid than believing anything from the radical Heritage Foundation, is believing anything from the Russian Foreign Minister! Of course he is going to say St Ronnie's deficit spending was good because he wants it to continue to the destruction of the US.

Reagan's deficit spending had nothing to do with the USSR, it was all about destroying this country!

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

There is an item called a source
both of those links provide a source as to where the data came from
now you can choose to ignore it, as you have
but it does not take away its accuracy

Providing information that is accurate is my intent, not the source
I find it inter sting that have not provided any link showing this information to be not accurate

Let me add
lying about GWB for 8 years finally got you the white house. To continue to lie is not going to work again
Deficit spending during 2 wars was expected. Congress approved both wars by a large margin
adding 1 trillion to the deficit calling it a shovel ready stimulus that bailed out unions only was not
these are facts

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

 

[JRK]

Ignoring our terrible problems will not make them go away. The Democrats just want to ignore and pass these terrible problems onto future generations. Is that the right thing to do? I'll let you decide that for yourselves.

If you think putting the Republicans back in power is going to result in the GOP taking the tough, politically toxic measures needed to straighten out our fiscal situation you are delusional.

Put the GOP back in power and the first thing they'll do is exacerbate our fiscal situation by cutting taxes even further, digging that revenue hole even deeper and making the hard spending cut choices even harder.

why do you think higher taxes will fix this mess?

 

[JRK]

The only thing more stupid than believing anything from the radical Heritage Foundation, is believing anything from the Russian Foreign Minister! Of course he is going to say St Ronnie's deficit spending was good because he wants it to continue to the destruction of the US.

Reagan's deficit spending had nothing to do with the USSR, it was all about destroying this country!

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

There is an item called a source
both of those links provide a source as to where the data came from
now you can choose to ignore it, as you have
but it does not take away its accuracy

Providing information that is accurate is my intent, not the source
I find it inter sting that have not provided any link showing this information to be not accurate

Let me add
lying about GWB for 8 years finally got you the white house. To continue to lie is not going to work again
Deficit spending during 2 wars was expected. Congress approved both wars by a large margin
adding 1 trillion to the deficit calling it a shovel ready stimulus that bailed out unions only was not
these are facts

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

So you want to blame GWB for the interest on the debt he inherited?
Typically those who are not hacks only look at the debt that president added
but if you want to add the interest to it then Obama has added about 4 trillion in 2 years, best I can tell
09 is over 1.2 his
this would also mean there was never a surplus and Clinton added about 2 trillion, 1.5 to 2
look, your a hack, I understand that
us that really care only count the debt the policies add
not the interest
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
this is from MSNBC
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.


yours state that we had 500 billion or so that year (07)
see

 

[edthecynic]

There is an item called a source
both of those links provide a source as to where the data came from
now you can choose to ignore it, as you have
but it does not take away its accuracy

Providing information that is accurate is my intent, not the source
I find it inter sting that have not provided any link showing this information to be not accurate

Let me add
lying about GWB for 8 years finally got you the white house. To continue to lie is not going to work again
Deficit spending during 2 wars was expected. Congress approved both wars by a large margin
adding 1 trillion to the deficit calling it a shovel ready stimulus that bailed out unions only was not
these are facts

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

So you want to blame GWB for the interest on the debt he inherited?
Typically those who are not hacks only look at the debt that president added
but if you want to add the interest to it then Obama has added about 4 trillion in 2 years, best I can tell
09 is over 1.2 his
this would also mean there was never a surplus and Clinton added about 2 trillion, 1.5 to 2
look, your a hack, I understand that
us that really care only count the debt the policies add
not the interest
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
this is from MSNBC
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.


yours state that we had 500 billion or so that year (07)
see

Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!

I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.

My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nunyadb]

So I guess cutting spending is out of the question ??

 

[JRK]

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

So you want to blame GWB for the interest on the debt he inherited?
Typically those who are not hacks only look at the debt that president added
but if you want to add the interest to it then Obama has added about 4 trillion in 2 years, best I can tell
09 is over 1.2 his
this would also mean there was never a surplus and Clinton added about 2 trillion, 1.5 to 2
look, your a hack, I understand that
us that really care only count the debt the policies add
not the interest
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
this is from MSNBC
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.


yours state that we had 500 billion or so that year (07)
see

Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!

I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.

My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I did not make that claim
The govt did and MSNBC reported it
your screaming at the wrong person
this is why I all ways use links

 

[JRK]

So I guess cutting spending is out of the question ??

It is really that simple
we won in Iraq, that cost is really gone, yet the deficit is went 7 times what it was in 07
the last GOP budget

 

[edthecynic]

So you want to blame GWB for the interest on the debt he inherited?
Typically those who are not hacks only look at the debt that president added
but if you want to add the interest to it then Obama has added about 4 trillion in 2 years, best I can tell
09 is over 1.2 his
this would also mean there was never a surplus and Clinton added about 2 trillion, 1.5 to 2
look, your a hack, I understand that
us that really care only count the debt the policies add
not the interest
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
this is from MSNBC
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.


yours state that we had 500 billion or so that year (07)
see

Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!

I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.

My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I did not make that claim
The govt did and MSNBC reported it
your screaming at the wrong person
this is why I all ways use links

And YOU parroted it here like a mindless drone!

I notice how you avoided the fact that you were aware of the correct deficit numbers all along when you denied the surplus numbers for 2000 and 2001, but you continue to use the dishonest deficit numbers to downplay Bush II's $6 trillion in deficit spending.
Very revealing. Thank you.

 

[JRK]

Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!

I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.

My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I did not make that claim
The govt did and MSNBC reported it
your screaming at the wrong person
this is why I all ways use links

And YOU parroted it here like a mindless drone!

I notice how you avoided the fact that you were aware of the correct deficit numbers all along when you denied the surplus numbers for 2000 and 2001, but you continue to use the dishonest deficit numbers to downplay Bush II's $6 trillion in deficit spending.
Very revealing. Thank you.

Do you have link showing GWB DEFICIT SPENDING of 6 trillion?
SPENDING?
let me help you
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
those graphs as shown are actual and CBO/Whithouse estimates
no where near 4 trillion, much less 6
in fact if you compare split 09 deficit (why I do not know) your still way below 3 trillion for GWB
whats the deal?

 

[edthecynic]

I did not make that claim
The govt did and MSNBC reported it
your screaming at the wrong person
this is why I all ways use links

And YOU parroted it here like a mindless drone!

I notice how you avoided the fact that you were aware of the correct deficit numbers all along when you denied the surplus numbers for 2000 and 2001, but you continue to use the dishonest deficit numbers to downplay Bush II's $6 trillion in deficit spending.
Very revealing. Thank you.

Do you have link showing GWB DEFICIT SPENDING of 6 trillion?
SPENDING?
let me help you
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
those graphs as shown are actual and CBO/Whithouse estimates
no where near 4 trillion, much less 6
in fact if you compare split 09 deficit (why I do not know) your still way below 3 trillion for GWB
whats the deal?

I already posted it!!!! Your CON$ervative dumb act hasn't worked in the past, why would you think it will work now????

As you already know, the CBO numbers before 2009 do not include off budget deficit spending. that is why the CBO numbers you keep citing show a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you admit you know are false numbers. The only way you could know that is to be aware of the actual deficit numbers I already posted. You'll use the real deficit numbers to deny a surplus in 2000 and 2001, but you dishonestly ignore the real deficit numbers to downplay Bush II's $6 trillion deficit spending spree that put us so deep in the hole, exactly as the GOP planned all along.

Here are Bush's 8 fiscal year deficits"

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only thing more stupid than believing anything from the radical Heritage Foundation, is believing anything from the Russian Foreign Minister! Of course he is going to say St Ronnie's deficit spending was good because he wants it to continue to the destruction of the US.

Reagan's deficit spending had nothing to do with the USSR, it was all about destroying this country!

July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending

There is an item called a source
both of those links provide a source as to where the data came from
now you can choose to ignore it, as you have
but it does not take away its accuracy

Providing information that is accurate is my intent, not the source
I find it inter sting that have not provided any link showing this information to be not accurate

Let me add
lying about GWB for 8 years finally got you the white house. To continue to lie is not going to work again
Deficit spending during 2 wars was expected. Congress approved both wars by a large margin
adding 1 trillion to the deficit calling it a shovel ready stimulus that bailed out unions only was not
these are facts

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Thanks for that link.
I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $3.388 Trillion to $6.317 Trillion. An increase of $2.929 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $5.716 trillion to $10.632 trillion. An increase of $4.916 Trillion.

I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 5/31/2011)
from $6.317 Trillion to $9.723 Trillion. An increase of $3.406 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2008 and 5/31/2011)
from $10.632 Trillion to $14.345 Trillion. An increase of $3.713 Trillion.

Looks like Obama's first 28 months have beat Bush's 96 months when you look at Debt Held by the Public.
I'll bet by this time next year, Obama will have beat Bush's 8 year total for Total Debt as well.

 

[edthecynic]

There is an item called a source
both of those links provide a source as to where the data came from
now you can choose to ignore it, as you have
but it does not take away its accuracy

Providing information that is accurate is my intent, not the source
I find it inter sting that have not provided any link showing this information to be not accurate

Let me add
lying about GWB for 8 years finally got you the white house. To continue to lie is not going to work again
Deficit spending during 2 wars was expected. Congress approved both wars by a large margin
adding 1 trillion to the deficit calling it a shovel ready stimulus that bailed out unions only was not
these are facts

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Thanks for that link.
I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $3.388 Trillion to $6.317 Trillion. An increase of $2.929 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $5.716 trillion to $10.632 trillion. An increase of $4.916 Trillion.

I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 5/31/2011)
from $6.317 Trillion to $9.723 Trillion. An increase of $3.406 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2008 and 5/31/2011)
from $10.632 Trillion to $14.345 Trillion. An increase of $3.713 Trillion.

Looks like Obama's first 28 months have beat Bush's 96 months when you look at Debt Held by the Public.
I'll bet by this time next year, Obama will have beat Bush's 8 year total for Total Debt as well.

As you well know, the budget is based on fiscal years not calendar years. And the yearly budget deficit is the yearly increase in the total debt for each budget, not the public debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.

Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Thanks for that link.
I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $3.388 Trillion to $6.317 Trillion. An increase of $2.929 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $5.716 trillion to $10.632 trillion. An increase of $4.916 Trillion.

I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 5/31/2011)
from $6.317 Trillion to $9.723 Trillion. An increase of $3.406 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2008 and 5/31/2011)
from $10.632 Trillion to $14.345 Trillion. An increase of $3.713 Trillion.

Looks like Obama's first 28 months have beat Bush's 96 months when you look at Debt Held by the Public.
I'll bet by this time next year, Obama will have beat Bush's 8 year total for Total Debt as well.

As you well know, the budget is based on fiscal years not calendar years. And the yearly budget deficit is the yearly increase in the total debt for each budget, not the public debt.

So the Obama stimulus package passed on February 17, 2009 should count against Bush, because his budget ran until September 2009?
The Debt Held by the Public numbers and Total Debt numbers I posted are more accurate than adding each years "budget deficit" numbers together. My way takes into account "off-budget" trickery that politicians use. They can't trick us when we add up all the bonds they sell.

 

[edthecynic]

Thanks for that link.
I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $3.388 Trillion to $6.317 Trillion. An increase of $2.929 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $5.716 trillion to $10.632 trillion. An increase of $4.916 Trillion.

I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 5/31/2011)
from $6.317 Trillion to $9.723 Trillion. An increase of $3.406 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2008 and 5/31/2011)
from $10.632 Trillion to $14.345 Trillion. An increase of $3.713 Trillion.

Looks like Obama's first 28 months have beat Bush's 96 months when you look at Debt Held by the Public.
I'll bet by this time next year, Obama will have beat Bush's 8 year total for Total Debt as well.

As you well know, the budget is based on fiscal years not calendar years. And the yearly budget deficit is the yearly increase in the total debt for each budget, not the public debt.

So the Obama stimulus package passed on February 17, 2009 should count against Bush, because his budget ran until September 2009?
The Debt Held by the Public numbers and Total Debt numbers I posted are more accurate than adding each years "budget deficit" numbers together. My way takes into account "off-budget" trickery that politicians use. They can't trick us when we add up all the bonds they sell.

I was not the one using budget trickery, it was JeRK. And when CON$ wanted to use unspent stimulus money to pay for extending unemployment benefits they argued that very little of it was spent in 2009 because the Dems were saving it for just before the 2012 election. So obviously very little of would be counted against Bush.

You have to remember that Reagan is the one who said in his first State of the Union speech that you measure each presidents debt by the fiscal year plus interest. I am merely using St Ronnie's established CON$ervative standard.