|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 17:12:42 GMT -5
The deficit is not the debt. Two entirely different numbers.  |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 17:13:41 GMT -5
Also, and you may not be aware of this but, massive deficit spending began under who? FDR.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 17:20:25 GMT -5
Okay then, lets look at the debt with the help of some handy charts: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Under Clinton (a Democrat) our national debt flatlined. Under Bush (a Republican) our national debt skyrocketed. So simple that even a bag full of hammers could understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 17:24:37 GMT -5
$4.4 to $5.6 Trillion under Clinton is not a flat line.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 17:27:29 GMT -5
I agree that it went up under Bush, it did not quite double though and it did not go up 16 times. But, the greatest increase was due to the two wars and it still did not go up 16 times for two wars that lasted longer then WWII and had more expensive equipment as well. Your argument just fell flat on it's face.
I would also point out that Bill Clinton's debt was equal to two thirds of the GDP. I am not sure what percentage Bush had, but Reagan's debt was only equal to half of the GDP at it's highest point and one third of the GDP at it's lowest.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 17:30:06 GMT -5
Yeah, wars, nice scapegoat.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 17:33:05 GMT -5
Yes, your side did use it for a scapegoat to say a 16 times increase or an increase of 1,512.5% was justified. Why is it good for the goose and not the gander. In fact, it proves that Bush was far better at managing the cost of the wars and the economy at the same time then FDR was.
But, that might have to with the fact that FDR was a terrible study of economics as his grades and teachers have professed.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 17:35:05 GMT -5
But FDR was better at picking his battles. Bush's whole premise for war in Iraq (WMD) turned out to be false, so all that money spent (about $1 trillion) was a complete and utter waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 19:03:23 GMT -5
To bad every leader in the free world and in congress thought the same thing. And since it was the Democrats that cut the intelligence budget of this country by a billion dollars on Clinton's watch, why does George W. Bush get the blame? It was the hindrance of our intelligence by that cut that caused us to receive faulty information, not Bush. So that means it is the fault of the entire Democrat Party who was in government and control at the time of that budget cut. You can't deny that our intelligence was harmed by that action. Step up and accept it for what it is. That one budget cut ended up costing us a trillion dollars due to Democrat short sightedness.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jan 29, 2009 19:22:48 GMT -5
You're such a weasel. The legitimate information was out there. The Bush admin. chose to ignore it. This is all well documented.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jan 29, 2009 19:38:08 GMT -5
You're such a weasel. The legitimate information was out there. The Bush admin. chose to ignore it. This is all well documented. Really? |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Jan 29, 2009 22:11:02 GMT -5
You're such a weasel. The legitimate information was out there. The Bush admin. chose to ignore it. This is all well documented. Look, it is the genuflecting lemming of the left. Distorting the facts again. |
|
