Go to sarooster on politics
- Add a comment
- Go to Some interesting numbers on the US public debt!
Yes, Blog, those comments are right on.
Our debt has grown a lot faster in the past as a percantage of GDP than it is now. We can manage the debt if we can continue to grow the economy. That is not the optimal situation though. We need to spend less; much less. Our problem is we can't stop spending on social programs where a lot of our money goes. We skimp on levee construction and such. So this is a hard game to play. At one point we are going to have to make some hard decsions about our money and debt. The only other way is to grow our GDP so that the debt becomes less and less of a burden. It's not good by any means. We need to spend less.
posted by
sarooster
on March 19, 2006 at 1:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Sarooster - The debt is growing at an unprecedented rate.
Yep I sleep better at night with the “fiscal conservatives” controlling our purse strings. In 1994 the year of the GOP takeover of Congress there were 4120 earmarks in 13 appropriations bills. In 2005 there were 14,040. Furthermore, you’re correct, the spending requests generally originally with Congress, but they can also be (and have been) at the request of Bush. If he wants to spend less why has he NEVER used his veto powers?
The previous 8 years with the fiscally irresponsible Democrats in the White House the debt increased by 1.5 trillion. In 5 years with Bush in office it has increased by more than 3 trillion.
| Growth In National Debt | Year | Actual (trillion) | Span | Average Per Year Increase in Billions | |
| 1 trillion | 1981 | 1,028,729,000,000 | 1981 - 1985 | 219 | |
| 2 trillion | 1986 | 2,125,302,600,000 | 1986 - 1989 | 245 | |
| 3 trillion | 1990 | 3,103,700,000,000 | 1990 - 1991 | 377 | |
| 4 trillion | 1992 (mid) | 4,046,621,000,000 | 1992 - 2000 | 203 | Clinton |
| 5.60 trillion | 2000 | 5,674,178,000,000 | | | |
| 8.17 trillion | 2005 | 9,000,000,000,000 | 2001 – 2006 | 498 | Bush |
In WWII we had troops over all of Europe and North Africa. You compare the costs to Afghanistan and Iraq? -- This is not a right-wing or left-wind issue: its our children's and grandchildren's future burden.
posted by
blogflogger
on March 19, 2006 at 12:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Great comment, Janes!
No one is happy about the debt. The lilberals must think the debt only began under President Bush. As I mentioned in the post Roosevelt and Truman did a wonderful job of increasing it over 5-fold during their terms when we were at work. So this is not something that just began. The liberals think it is all Geroge Bush's doing. Well, him and maybe Ken Lay!!
posted by
sarooster
on March 19, 2006 at 7:59 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm not happy with the out of control debt, butttttttttttttttttttttt
one thing that libs conveniently love to forget is that their darling Clinton did not have 9/11 to deal with; he did not have the war in AFghanistan to fight (and most libs support that, even if they don't support the war in Iraq); nor did Clinton have two back to back massive hurricanes.
And they're all whining about debt? Please. Now, I am NOT happy about the increasing entitlement programs that have been put in place under Bush. I think that money could have been saved for a later date, but I am guessing he was playing the politician and trying to please both sides.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on March 19, 2006 at 7:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Pearl1,
Our debt is running out of control. All my post was trying to explain was that is that our debt continues to go up no matter who is President. The Congress controls the money though. The Presidnet can't do anything if bills to spend money don't get to him. I was merely pointing out that you can use numbers to justify just about anything.
The left just bashes George Bush all the time. I know you really can't compare one era to another, but Bush could cure cancer and the left would still cry about him.
The economic activity surely picks up during war. We are not in that bad a shape right now. Of couse, according to the left only the right benefits during times like these. They don't seem to consider investing money in sectors that might help them accumulate money. They just whine about the people who do have money.
posted by
sarooster
on March 17, 2006 at 2:17 AM
| link to this | reply
You have your opinion and I have mine mystic.
Unfortunately, yours is dead wrong. Your blind hatred for Bush has just exposed you as being un-American when you don't consider yourself part of America. It's we. The whole country is involved. in this deal. Why is it always George Bush's fault? Why not fault the Congress? They control the money. It's hard to have any type of debate about any issue in America today when the left only sees hatred. That's why they stay in second place and second place in America is last place.
posted by
sarooster
on March 17, 2006 at 2:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi, Sarooster,
Glad to see another interesting post. I've been out of town, but I got back today and heard on the radio about the increased limit on the debt. Increased limit? Sounds like we're on a giant credit card, huh? Also, I was told long ago, well, in high school, that the economy improves when the country is at war. That doesn't seem to be the case, though, not that economy is any excuse for war. That's just something I remember hearing long ago.
posted by
BlackPearl1
on March 16, 2006 at 10:19 PM
| link to this | reply
"We" got a bargain with Bush??????
Who is "we," quinosabe! To compare the war in Iraq with WWI or WWII is just insane! There is no way a true conservative can justify the Bush administration's and the Republican controlled Congress' spending and use of earmarks that have contributed to the national debt. The war in Iraq was unneccesary and will cost untold millions more before it's over.
posted by
fwmystic
on March 16, 2006 at 8:45 PM
| link to this | reply