NationStates Jolt Archive


More poofy comsymp liberals dissing the greatest chimp on Earth...

Cahnt
09-11-2005, 20:48
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511/NAT20051104b.html

Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined, Group Says
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 04, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, a group of conservative to moderate Democrats said Friday.

Blue Dog Coalition, which describes itself as a group "focused on fiscal responsibility," called the administration's borrowing practices "astounding."

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

"The seriousness of this rapid and increasing financial vulnerability of our country can hardly be overstated," said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

"The financial mismanagement of our country by the Bush Administration should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of political persuasion," said Tanner in a press release.

Earlier this year, the Blue Dog Coalition unveiled a 12-step plan to "cure" the nation's "addiction to deficit spending." It included requiring all federal agencies to pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the establishment of a rainy day fund for use in emergencies specifically a natural disaster.

"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years," said Tanner. "If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."

Isn't it the Democrats who are supposed to damage the economy by running up huge debts?
The Lone Alliance
09-11-2005, 20:52
And your point before I report this as a copycat thread with Trolling and Flamebait mixed in?
Deep Kimchi
09-11-2005, 20:54
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511/NAT20051104b.html
Isn't it the Democrats who are supposed to damage the economy by running up huge debts?

Everyone since FDR has done it.

And I believe that until Clinton came along, the Democrats bought Keynes hook, line, and sinker on this.

Maybe Keynes was right - or can you explain why our economy is still steadily growing?
Shazbotdom
09-11-2005, 21:00
If i remember correctly....didn't Clinton (A Democrat) bring us OUT of debt?



Or am I just thinking he did?
Deep Kimchi
09-11-2005, 21:01
If i remember correctly....didn't Clinton (A Democrat) bring us OUT of debt?

Or am I just thinking he did?

While he did get balanced budgets (one of the other things Clinton adopted from Newt Gingrich), the national debt was in no way paid off.

Balanced budgets and ending welfare as we know it both were Gingrich's ideas - and Clinton signed them.
Vetalia
09-11-2005, 21:03
If i remember correctly....didn't Clinton (A Democrat) bring us OUT of debt?

No, a massive equity bubble brought us out of debt (although it never paid down any real debt). Clinton was only able to keep us from spending too much by working with the Republicans (to his credit).

This is a little misleading, since 1 trillion dollars today is nothing compared to that 1 trillion dollars borrowed by previous presidents adjusted for inflation.
Sick Nightmares
09-11-2005, 21:04
If i remember correctly....didn't Clinton (A Democrat) bring us OUT of debt?



Or am I just thinking he did?
Sure did! By slashing spending in defense,and intelligence, and breaking his promise to spend more on low income families.

Guess who has spent more on funding for impoverished families than any other president in the history of the United States? GWB. Don't believe me? LOOK IT UP!

~EDIT~ Ah yes, we also can't forget who was controlling congress at the time. "Contract with America" ring any bells?

And how much of the debt is a direct result of crazy Muslim extremists trying to kill us? But don't blame them damnit. It was all Dubyas fault!
The South Islands
09-11-2005, 21:05
You know, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, advocated a perminant national debt.
Cahnt
09-11-2005, 21:07
And your point before I report this as a copycat thread with Trolling and Flamebait mixed in?
I wasn't aware this had been posted already. Do feel free to point out where trolling comes in, though.
My point is that the main beef against Carter seems to be the hideous damage he did to the American economy, and no Republican would ever act like that. Given that, this seems a bit rum, to say the least.
Deep Kimchi
09-11-2005, 21:08
No, a massive equity bubble brought us out of debt (although it never paid down any real debt). Clinton was only able to keep us from spending too much by working with the Republicans (to his credit).

This is a little misleading, since 1 trillion dollars today is nothing compared to that 1 trillion dollars borrowed by previous presidents adjusted for inflation.

We never came out of debt. We had a few balanced budgets, and were projected to come out of debt in the far future.
Sick Nightmares
09-11-2005, 21:09
I wasn't aware this had been posted already. Do feel free to point out where trolling comes in, though.
My point is that the main beef against Carter seems to be the hideous damage he did to the American economy, and no Republican would ever act like that. Given that, this seems a bit rum, to say the least.
The main beef with Carter was that he is a shelter ninny who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and couldn't protect this country from an army of teletubbies with paintball guns. (among other things)
Deep Kimchi
09-11-2005, 21:09
Do feel free to point out where trolling comes in, though.

The original post is not trolling. The title is a bit trolling, but I don't care as long as the meat of the post is OK.
Vetalia
09-11-2005, 21:10
I wasn't aware this had been posted already. Do feel free to point out where trolling comes in, though.
My point is that the main beef against Carter seems to be the hideous damage he did to the American economy, and no Republican would ever act like that. Given that, this seems a bit rum, to say the least.

Carter's economy was way worse than anything Bush has had, even during the recession (which was so mild as to strain the definition).

Of course to be fair, Carter had little control over the economy or inflation (like any president), but made some mistakes that resulted in some culpability. He was more or less president at the wrong time in that regard.
Sick Nightmares
09-11-2005, 21:12
Look at it this way. If your household budget is balanced, and you have no debt, and then your garage burns down, and you have to replace it, is it your fault for not budgeting properly? What if you find out that the roof is messed up and leaking because the previous owner never took care of it, and you have to pay to replace it. Is it your fault for not budgeting properly.

What if you are financially responsible, and paying the bills, and then someone flies a plane into your house?
Vetalia
09-11-2005, 21:14
What if you are financially responsible, and paying the bills, and then someone flies a plane into your house?

Or the stock market crashes under your predecessor, erasing 7 trillion dollars in stock wealth and vaporizing trillions in projected surpluses?

For those projections of "surpluses" in the late 90's to be true, the NASDAQ would have to be in the 20,000 point range right now.