Welcome to PatsFans.com

Republican Pres. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II responsible for 70 % of American Debt

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Apr 7, 2008.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Read this somewhere this morning, and was surprised that the party that is considered fiscally conservative has incurred this much of a debt, everyone whines about how Obama and Clinton are going to lead us into socialism... there are quite a few sources that support this.. but this chart is telling.. forgot how long that the Republicans have been in power since Johnson left office, but if you look at this the Republicans have led us down this rosy path.

    http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart_2006-email.jpg
  2. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .

    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress
    Democrat Congress


    ... and 8 years of Billy Blue Dress. :eek:


    :singing:

    //
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Guess you did not read the chart, the deficit declined when Clinton was in office.. wasn't there a republican congress during the first 6 years of Bush II??
  4. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    The wheels of ultra-debt were set in motion LONG before the Repubs took over Congress for those few short years. Every time the Repubs get in, they try to cut back on the debt by cutting spending; then the people, accustomed as they are to Dem hand-outs, start screaming bloody murder, kick out the Repubs, and now you have what you have: an ENORMOUS debt.

    Thank you, FDR and all successive Dems in the White House and Congress. We owe all our debt to YOU!!

    :mad:

    //
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Another made up factoid... you are wrong pure and simple, read the chart.. 70% is a lot of money;..
  6. Bigdogx

    Bigdogx Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Lol didnt i already shut jack up when he tried posting this chart not even two weeks ago. Will you people atleast look up on who was in charge of the spending during those years and if you say the president please consider yourself a retard and just exit the post!
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,254
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Fog, you're wrong. You may have other ways to defend the Repubs, but in term of managing the US budget, they've been dreadful. Here is the debt as a percent of GNP, which some righties prefer to use:

    [​IMG]
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Good morning, that was a very remarkable post.. glad to see you are part of the local intelligentia.. let me ask you one question, who controlled congress the first 6 years of Bush II?
  9. Bigdogx

    Bigdogx Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0



    http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=80245

    Well it looks to me like the r. held it from 95 to 99 when our economy was at it's best! And we kind of did have a few planes fly into some buildings in 2001 like ftw said, which made are spending go up!

    Your trying to compare apples to oranges, im not going to sit here and defend some of the things this administration has done, but atleast paint the whole picture instead of the bits and pieces that you want.
  10. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Take away all the "entitlements" Reagan and Bush were forced to pay in times when the U.S. was making up for lost time in building state-of-the-art defense infrastructures, and you've got a nice control on the debt, orders of magnitude better than FDR, Truman, Carter or Clinton. The Dems reduced debt by stopping spending on defense and national security, including foreign aid, a very powerful tool in building friends. The Repubs have been forced into paying for TWO worlds: self-defense AND hand-outs to the fatherless families of America.


    //
  11. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't believe anyone has ever tried to say GWB doesn't spend money. In fact, I recall that a few of us here have criticized him for just that.


    While you were analyzing that chart though, did you notice the skyrocket uptick for Clinton's first 2 years? Then came 94, and the little arrow turned blue.

    Funny, that.
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,254
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    What state of the art defenses? We didn't stop 9/11. We can't even defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or the get order in Iraq. You don't have an iota of evidence that the United States was in any more danger under Democrats than Republicans.
  13. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Read again what I said. Also go back and read up on the severely crippling budget cuts Carter and Clinton forced onto the military, the national security agecies (FBI, CIA) and U.S. intel gathering sources. Those derelictions of duty are what cause 9/11. The pilots of those planes on 9/11 learned how to fly while they were foreign nationals, with NO professional aviation credentials, no backing from any foreign airlines -- and it all occurred while Bill Clinton was president, with Hillary as the first lady. That is all the damning evidence needed.


    //
  14. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    As others have said, Congress is more responsible for spending and we generally have a split government. Al lthose Bush/Reagan years weren't Democrat congresses but many of them were. It's far too simplistic to just look at the President - and yet it doesn't surprise me that many here do just that.
  15. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Like kids on the playground throwing stones at the class president. Ha-ha. Children.


    //
  16. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    First Off, how can you blame Reagan or Bush I for any of the current debt, since all US debt was eliminated by the "Contract with America" Newt Gingrinch led Congress. So once again, a complete lie in your thread title.

    Bush has been spending like a school girl, and he is paying the price for this. But if you think that electing either Hillary or Obama would rectify this situation, your nuts. Both have so far made promises that would increase government spending by something like 400 BILLION!
  17. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    [size=+3]"FREE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE!!! QUALITY ... WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT QUALITY??? Now, that'll be $400 Billion, this year. Goes up by 10% every year thereafter. :mad:"[/size]


    //
  18. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

  19. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,254
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Well we lost fewer lives under Clinton and Carter than under Reagan or Bush II. Recall that Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 200+ Marines. You have not made the case that Reagan or Bush II, with their investments, made us safer. Bush has had 7 years, and yet we are still struggling in Afghanistan and Iraq and we are still seeing Americans die every week. Dead soldiers aside, you might be able to say we are as safe now, but I don't think you can provide a measure demonstrating we are safer now than we were under Clinton or Carter.
  21. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    If you look at this historically there were many terrorist attacks during the reign of Reagan.. with little response.. but we have been told by Foggie that he was focusing on Russia.. maybe if we kicked asss early on it may have stopped it.
  22. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It's true he was focused on the USSR. Reagan didn't see terrorism as a separate entity. He saw it as part of some grand global thing.

    It's funny. All the crybaby lib ballwashers are hopping up and down, threatening to hold their breath if the US doesn't "cut and run" from Iraq. Yet, instead of fighting back, Reagan did cut and run from Lebanon, and guess what the first thing those same crybaby lib ballwashers cite is?

    Well Reagan ran away...

    Intellectually vacant, the lot of them.
  23. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    But those things didn't exist when a democrat was in office?
    Dems stopped spending on defense and national security?

    You're dillusional.
  24. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I think he's also delusional.

    :D

    werd!
  25. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,254
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Liberals are merely pointing out a double standard. Leaving Iraq is considered some sort of emasculating act of cutting and running, but Reagan (the idol of the right) fleeing Lebanon was considered okay. Personally, I think Reagan did the right thing by cutting and running from Lebanon.
  26. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    At least you're intellectually honest.

    But!

    "Pointing out a double standard"...when people use Clinton (for example) to do that, all liberal hell rains down.

    In other words, it's only a double standard if it's a conservative.
  27. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Oh, so now you're going to DENY Jimmy Cahter's MASSIVE defense budget cuts, and Bill Clinton's equally massive defense and intel budget cuts???

    :wha:

    I'm delusional???

    You're into your Guinness a little early today, aren't you!!!


    :singing:

    //
  28. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Ack! That same old spin? "It started before the GOP took over Congress!' ?!? Total crap. Please, do you have anything new to argue?
  29. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Dear Sir: Please refer to the lovely chart provided by Mr. Patters. The national debt was stratospheric under FDRoosevelt, dipped ever so slightly under Truman, then more and more under Eisenhower and thereafter. The national debt began under Dem Congressional rule, and persisted all throughout the past 65 years. The short time of Repub Congress did not alter the debt structure one way or another, but the entire national debt problem began with, and continues to this day, under Democratic Congresses. Sir.

    It is what it is.


    //
  30. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    Republican Maxim #1: Wars, arms races, covert military actions, no-bid contracts, the FCC, faith-based initiatives etc. do not count as spending. The money for these things comes from jesus, not the American tax payer.

    Republican Maxim #2: The President can veto anything he wants (CHIPS, DOD bills etc.) unless in hindsight it was a mistake, and then it is the fault of the Democratic congress that the bill was not vetoed.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2008

Share This Page