American national debt by political party

      Home » Current events and news » American national debt by political party

American national debt by political party

Looks like a pattern emerging there, Republicans up Democrats down. However both Bush's had to finance a war.

 http://www.digg.com/politic...

Note that it ends in 2004, where would it be 3 years later?

national-debt1.gif - 92.6kb
By netchicken: posted on 14-1-2008

Playing with the numbers - an old political game played by both parties.

Another thing that is played, and in this case, the Dems areplaying it, is taking things out of context. For example, anyone who remembers the Carter years remembers the inflation and staggering interest rates that stifled investment and home purchases. The Reaganomics of the years afterward helped put things right again. Cutting taxes allowed for corporate investment which, in turn, expanded the tax base (employees), which, in turn, put more money into the federal coffers. What has to be remembered, though, is that we were fighting the Cold War, and that Reagan spent even more than what was coming in so that we could bury the enemy. He accomplished the mission.

I see that the Clinton years are all nice, according to the chart, but we also remember that the monetary gains had not a thing to do with him as the investments in R&D were starting to bear fruit in the technology and IT world, while at the same time Clinton was showing just how badly his administration could neglect things such as the military, which would be needed by the next president because of his failures to eliminate a bad guy who would later cause us harm. Also, it needs to be remembered that the recession was starting to rear its ugly head even eight months before the next president (Bush) would take office. That is to say, Clinton isn't all that and a bag of chips.

Let's move on to the next president, Bush 43. With the help of both a republican and democrat congress, this dolt has proven to be the craziest Democrat ever! Yeah, I know, he is a "Republican", but I spotted him as a fiscal Dummycrat six months into his first term and was demanding that the die-hard Republicans at work explain themselves at that time. Their answer was that he was setting himself up for a second four years.
I'm glad eight is the max amount a president can have because I don't think we can afford another term!
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 14-1-2008

Thanks TC its obvious from your post that you just can't take the numbers at face value, that there are lots of other factors behind the scenes.

If I am reading this right, these numbers show the debt INCREASE for each year, so every year the debt is still increasing, just that some years its increasing more than others.

If this is the case thats really scary numbers. The down ones are really only showing a LOWER increase than the up ones.

In all cases the debt is still increasing.
By netchicken: posted on 14-1-2008

Everybody on the republican side credits Regan for being fiscally very conservative but from what I've read about his time he was pretty liberal on spending. His failed Star Wars initiative in itself was a massive expenditure. They also had a very high level of spending of Defense R&D and operations especially when you consider that they had so much military activity going on.
By IAF: posted on 14-1-2008

Crap Thomas move to Zionist Israel and collect my taxes that is the ones that Bush does not spend on his wars. Your a naive feudal soldier. That is not personal it is a fact. Deal with it.

IAF Bush and Reagan along with Johnson were the and are the most Corporate Socialists that have led our Country. Hell Johnson filled the shoes of Corpatalist Assassins. So KBR, Haliburtun, George Schultz's Company [ Bechtel]could plunder American Tax Dollars. Keep repeating history your getting good at it. After all no child left behind.
I need a life you all need brains. Let's go see the Wizard down the Yellow Brick Road.
By TUTUTKAMEN: posted on 14-1-2008

Gee, Tut, do ever plan on pulling yourself out of that bottle? You are such a useless lush that even your typed words slur! It must be lonely, sitting around in your cabin, wearing your little Hitler mustache, rereading your copy of Mein Kampfe and festering in your hate.
Sorry, pal, KI can't move anywhere and collect taxes, I am too busy working and paying taxes in this country so idiots like you can sit around, drink booze and write worthless stuff such as what you just "contributed".
Sorry, that isn't personal, that is just fact. Deal with it.
Next time you feel like putting your filthy little fingers to the keyboard try saying something that comes close to making sense.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 15-1-2008

IAF, Reagan's economics, as I said, put a lot more money into the coffers. That is something you should have read. Also, another thing that I said and that you should have also read about, is that we were at it with something that you only know by history as well, and that is the U.S.S.R. The reason you have no real memory of it is because Reagan pulled out all the stops in order to run it into the ground. This cost us in debt, but I am sure the world would say it was worth it.

Netty, the debt is way out of control and we aren't going to pull out of this. Things are not only bad in regard to the debt, it is smoked on all sides. The idiot drunk with the perverted crush on Hitler( Tut) has a point, its just hard to find it. A good book to read would be The Late Great USA by Jerome R. Corsi. It explains clearly how our corporations and politicians are selling this country down the river and how China is the beneficiary of all this, while the American citizen is the ultimate loser.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 15-1-2008

... Quote:
Originally posted by TUTUTKAMEN

IAF Bush and Reagan along with Johnson were the and are the most Corporate Socialists that have led our Country.


Just curious but who would be your candidate for you this time around, somebody you dont think is a corporate socialist ??
By IAF: posted on 15-1-2008

... Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas_Crowne
IAF, Reagan's economics, as I said, put a lot more money into the coffers. That is something you should have read. Also, another thing that I said and that you should have also read about, is that we were at it with something that you only know by history as well, and that is the U.S.S.R. The reason you have no real memory of it is because Reagan pulled out all the stops in order to run it into the ground. This cost us in debt, but I am sure the world would say it was worth it.


See TC for me, Regan was just a president who was the answer to a 2nd grade Social Studies answer. So I dont have the emotional attachments or the propaganda to fall back on regarding him. But what one can read, dispassionately about his economics, shows him in a different light as to what he was portrayed as in the US today.

He essentially transformed the economy into a mode of deficit spending, largely to finance the Cold war moving America from a net creditor to a net debtor. While his predecessors since then are still blindly continuing his economic policies without any great need to do so and in fact expanding upon his deficit spending tactics. The real growth and expansion of the economy during his tenure is still being debated as if it were a result of his policies or as a culmination of previous policies under Carter and Ford and Nixon.

Also take for example this paragraph from Wikipedia:
... Quote:

Reganomics
The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[11] due to the facts that the combination of significant tax cuts and a massiveincrease in Cold War related defense spending caused large budget deficits,[12] the U.S. trade deficit expansion,[12] and contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis,[13] as well as the stock market crash of 1987. In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily bothdomestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[14] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[15] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of hispresidency.[14]


REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS ENACTED UNDER REAGAN (as percentage of GDP)
(From US Treasury Dept non-partisan economic study)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Number of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~years after enactment~~ First
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------------~~2-yr 4-yr
Tax bill~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~2~~~3~~~4~~avg avg
------------------------------------------------..................----------------------------------------
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.....................-1.21 -2.60 -3.58 -4.15 -1.91 -2.89
Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982...0.53 1.07 1.08 1.23 0.80 0.98
Highway Revenue Act of 1982..............................0.05 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09
Social Security Amendments of 1983....................0.17 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.20 0.21
Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.07 -0.05
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984................................0.24 0.37 0.47 0.49 0.30 0.39
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985..........0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05
Tax Reform Act of 1986.........................................0.41 0.02 -0.23 -0.16 0.22 0.01
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987..........0.19 0.28 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL...................................................................0.33 -0.53 -1.63 -1.97 -0.10 -0.95


By IAF: posted on 15-1-2008

Propaganda?!? Buddy, it isn'[t propaganda but experience and recollection.

Yeah, I love Wikipedia, just like I lovfe Bill O'Reilly. Both are equally reliable, if you catch my sarcasm.

But, again, in case you aren't following (which I do not think you are), the question isn't whether or not a deficit was created but why it came about. It seems you haven't the memory of the threat some of us grew up under and what Reagan set out to eliminate - and accomplished the mission. Had the current president not decided to humiliate Russia, the threat of Russian warheads being shoved down your throat would have been a thing of the past, thereby making the spending worth while.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 15-1-2008

Well wikipedia articles have links on what they are based on. The paragraph I quoted as well as the table all have links back to their original sources including the US Treasury Department.

Also, I was talking about why the deficit came; because of the massive defense spending based off of foreign deficit.

And what does the current president have to do with the 'threat of Russian missiles' ? There is no reason to continue Regan's deficit spending is there ?
By IAF: posted on 15-1-2008

By the way, Reagan's SDI was not failed; you are seeing the results now. It also played a part in driving the Soviet Union over the edge; between that and the Pershing II's, the Reds couldn't even begin to keep up with our money or engineers.

What does the current prez have to do with the Russians? He violated the gentleman's agreement to not encroach upon Russia, to not bring the former satellite countries into NATO. Rather than treating Russia with respect, Bush paid lip service to Putin while engaging her as a conquering nation. What has this done for us? Simple; because of this we have a Russia that is deploying new and improved sea and land based missiles, and sending bombers over the Arctic - as if the Cold War is back on again. Rather than working as a fellow benign nation, Russia has abandoned the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Russia is also in military cooperation with China, another nation that plans on challenging our global strength. As you certainly know, Putin has also made a point to cozy up to the two ME nations we are at odds with - Syria and Iran, to the point of arming them with more sophisticated ADA systems than they had before.

That is precisely what the current president has to do with the threat of Russian missiles.

This is a far cry from the what he said during a debate with Al Gore back before he embarked upon his crusade to democratize the world. Bush said that the United States must be, "...humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 15-1-2008

HI,thanks for posting and sharing this thread. By the way,any updates on this one? Think this has been inactive for almost a year. Thanks!
By fratelli101: posted on 17-9-2009








American national debt by political party | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy