|
bobd1953
Jul 22, 2005, 4:49 PM
Post #1 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Jul 2005 at 04:40:48 PM GMT is:
7,863,806,246,364.06
The estimated population of the United States is 296,586,716
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,514.34.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.64 billion per day since September 30, 2004!
Add this to the invasion of Iraq and the take over of republican party by the extreme right. Great job the man is doing. :lol:
But you have to remember...the stock market is gaining points. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 22, 2005, 5:12 PM
Post #2 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Under Clinton, our national debt increased 40 per cent.
What has the growth been since Bush took office?
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 22, 2005, 5:45 PM
Post #3 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Can't you read? I am talking about Bush in this tread.
But here is something to dispute your findings.
United States National Debt
(1938 to Present)
An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending
By Steve McGourty
Updated 9 April 2005
The chart below shows the United Stated national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction debt has taken since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question that the steepest upward rises in debt take place after Reagan was elected when so called Conservative Republican Presidents are in office (see red below).
Historical Perspective
Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 33. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. The Democratic yearly average (that is the years Democrats were in the White House) was an increase of 8.3%. The years while the Republicans ran the White House, during this same period; the debt increased an average 9.3% per year. Those averages are pretty close.
If you look at the debt starting with Truman’s term (and remove Roosevelt’s WWII debt) the difference between the two parties contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.3% per year. Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.
Prior to the Neo-Conservative take over of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties debt philosophy, they both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan Presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 was during the Clinton Presidency, where he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.
Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republican Presidents. Looking at the only Democratic President since 1981, Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year; the Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.59. Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, Clinton did.
Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy all worked vigorously to keep spending under control. Of the seven years Truman was in office, the national debt came down in four of those years. Three of the eight years Eisenhower served as President saw debt reduction. Kennedy reduced the debt by over 4% his first year in office, then it went up slightly his next two years. While the debt did go up every year during Johnson’s time in office, he was the last president before Clinton to submit a balanced budget. Johnson’s average was a debt increase of 3% for the five years he served.
Even Nixon only had one year where he raised the debt more than 6%, his average was 5% for the six years he was in office. Between uncontrolled inflation and Ford’s conservative bend the debt increased 17% his first year in office, 13% his second. Ford’s plan to impose a policy of price controls failed to bring over spending under control.
Carter tried to control government spending even during inflationary times. He increased the national debt 9% per year while he was in office, and brought inflation under control.
President Reagan repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself. Many blame the Democratic Congress for the “big spending” during his administration. The facts are that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented debt increase that took place during his time in office. The debt increased at an average of 13.8% for every year Reagan was in office, the highest average of any President since this nation was founded, and he still holds that record. From 1983 through 1985 the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 260% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary un-apologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. This unwanted weight continues as an onerous burden on this nations financial resources.
George Bush Sr. meekly followed in Reagan’s shadow, by increasing the debt on average a mere 11.8% a year during his four years as President. His last year in office he worked with Democrats to raise taxes to help reduce the massive yearly increases in debt, it was too little too late and didn’t make much difference in the overall trend, but the Neo-Conservatives threw him out of office for it any way.
President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it, he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostel Congress in history for the last six years of his administration, yet he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the first year of the Kennedy administration.
The current President Bush came into office and quickly turned all that progress around. He immediately gave yet another massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Clinton was in office the nation borrowed an additional 18 billion dollars, the first year Bush Jr. was in office he had to borrow 270 billion. The tax cut that caused this borrowing was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all this tax cutting and no cutting in what he is spending President Bush set a record in 2003 for the biggest single yearly increase in debt in the nation’s history, again in 2004 and by his own estimations he will break this record again in 2005. The debt is now increasing at the rate of 600 billion dollars a year[3]. Even Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of Bush’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush Jr. entered office his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year, so far.
Trickle Down Theory Myth
History has shown that the “trickle down theory” does not work. Hoover tried the “trickle down theory” (his words) to solve the economic problems the last few years of his only term when the greatest economic depression this country has ever faced began. It did not work and things got worse. Roosevelt got into office, raised taxes on the rich, created jobs for the poor and turned things around. Reagan employed the failed theory again in the ‘80’s and again it did not work. The rich got richer, but the poor got poorer and so did the economy. Bush Sr., with no vision of his own, continued the failed policy of his immediate predecessor. Clinton took a more progressive approach and turned the model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they will spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs and created an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while he was in office. Bush Jr. came in and once again applied the old trickle down model and immediately created a need to raise the debt to pay for an unneeded tax cut in 2001. Predictably the nation is lost jobs and there are fewer millionaires. Not learning from his past mistakes Bush pushed through yet another tax cut in 2003. He is not learning from his mistakes.
While it is a great sound bite, the facts show that the Republican “tax and spend” rhetoric about Democrats is not based on the facts. The facts do show that it takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off till later paying for our security today, they prefer to see our children pay our taxes. Neo-Conservative thinking has run up over a 7 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and it is still increasing at a record setting rate with no end to the increases in sight.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 22, 2005, 6:19 PM
Post #4 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Can't you read? I am talking about Bush in this t[h]read. But here is something to dispute your findings.
I can read fine. Obviously, you want to give the dishonest impression that our national debt is all Bush's fault, even though he inherited the lion's share of this debt.
Here's the problem - you take a bad situation, for which Bush is only partially responsible, and you try to pin the whole shebang on him. As a result, it's easy to punch holes in it.
Your subsequent article, while biased, does a good job of showing the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan, Bush and Bush II. It's not about the total debt (everyone's to blame), but in how much each administration increases the debt - both in actual dollars and as a percentage of the total. The devil is in the details. :wink:
BTW The story you added did nothing to "dispute my findings".
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 22, 2005, 6:30 PM
Post #5 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: I can read fine. Obviously, you want to give the dishonest impression that our national debt is all Bush's fault, even though he inherited the lion's share of this debt.
No you still can't read. I am not blaming the whole debt issue on Bush. There were two other issues too. I feel that all three will be his real legacy.
I am also showing that the republican presidents are the big spenders and they are the one who increase the size of government. Ever hear of Dept of Homeland Security.
You feel different, fine!
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Jul 22, 2005, 6:33 PM
Post #6 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: In reply to: Can't you read? I am talking about Bush in this t[h]read. But here is something to dispute your findings. I can read fine. Obviously, you want to give the dishonest impression that our national debt is all Bush's fault, even though he inherited the lion's share of this debt. Here's the problem - you take a bad situation, for which Bush is only partially responsible, and you try to pin the whole shebang on him. As a result, it's easy to punch holes in it. Your subsequent article, while biased, does a good job of showing the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan, Bush and Bush II. It's not about the total debt (everyone's to blame), but in how much each administration increases the debt - both in actual dollars and as a percentage of the total. The devil is in the details. :wink: BTW The story you added did nothing to "dispute my findings".
Not counting his father, Bush was not responsible for the level of the debt he inhereted in 2001 ($5,676,989,904,887 on September 7, 2000) but he is 100% responsible for restarting the practice of deficit spending and flying through Clinton's record $230 billion surplus from 2000 in no time. The acquired national debt is the product of irresponsible spending from many administrations, but when one president manages to singlehandedly fuck up (for lack of a better term) a budget that should have had a $455 billion surplus in 2001, it gets harder for even the most seasoned conservatives to find someone else to blame. Unless someone manages to start a war in time to ask Congress for more funding.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 22, 2005, 6:41 PM
Post #7 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: Under Clinton, our national debt increased 40 per cent. What has the growth been since Bush took office?
In reply to: When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the national debt was holding at $5.8 trillion. In the four years since that time, debt has climbed by over $2 trillion. For comparison, during the two terms of the Clinton administration, our debt only climbed by $1.4 trillion over the eight years. During the one term presidency of George H.W. Bush, debt climbed by $1.2 trillion. |
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 22, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #8 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: I can read fine. Obviously, you want to give the dishonest impression that our national debt is all Bush's fault, even though he inherited the lion's share of this debt. No you still can't read. I am not blaming the whole debt issue on Bush.
I missed the part (in your OP) where you noted Bush's part of the whole debt.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 22, 2005, 6:56 PM
Post #9 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: I missed the part (in your OP) where you noted Bush's part of the whole debt.
You still can't read. Find where I stated it was his whole debt.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 22, 2005, 7:03 PM
Post #10 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: he is 100% responsible for restarting the practice of deficit spending and flying through Clinton's record $230 billion surplus from 2000 in no time. The acquired national debt is the product of irresponsible spending from many administrations, but when one president manages to singlehandedly fuck up (for lack of a better term) a budget that should have had a $455 billion surplus in 2001, it gets harder for even the most seasoned conservatives to find someone else to blame.
Predicted budget surpluses are not the same as realized surpluses. The last year the federal debt actually decreased was 1960. In other words, its been 45 years since we did not post a deficit.
While the efforts of Clinton and Congress to reverse deficit spending should be applauded, let's not overlook the historically high tax collections that helped their cause.
BTW This is in no way an endorsement of Bush's fiscal policies.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 22, 2005, 7:08 PM
Post #11 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: I missed the part (in your OP) where you noted Bush's part of the whole debt. You still can't read. Find where I stated it was his whole debt.
Considering the OP is actually is related to the thread title, there's nothing in the OP to distinguish Bush's share of the problem.
The thread is titled Bush's real legacy
The original post starts - U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 22 Jul 2005 at 04:40:48 PM GMT is:
7,863,806,246,364.06
The estimated population of the United States is 296,586,716
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,514.34.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.64 billion per day since September 30, 2004!
Please show me where someone could infer that Bush was only part of this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Jul 22, 2005, 7:10 PM
Post #12 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
No comment on my post Thorne?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 22, 2005, 7:24 PM
Post #13 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: No comment on my post Thorne?
Accurate and relevant. Good job. :wink:
The only thing that I might consider addressing would the fact that we went through a pretty big recession and our military expenses were significantly increased. Despite these two big hits on our federal coffers, it seems like our leaders in DC have done a lousy job at fiscal restraint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 22, 2005, 11:17 PM
Post #15 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
Bumblie maybe even you can understand this chart. It is federal debt by year. If you need any help let me know thanks.
Title: Federal Debt Held by Federal Reserve Banks
Series ID: FDHBFRBN
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service
Release: Treasury Bulletin
Seasonal Adjustment: Not Seasonally Adjusted
Frequency: Mar Jun Sep Dec
Units: Billions of Dollars
Date Range: 1970-03-31 to 2005-03-31
Last Updated: 2005-06-09 11:06 AM CT
Notes: Monthly data reported for March, June, September and December.
DATE VALUE
1970-03-31 55.8
1970-06-30 57.7
1970-09-30 60.0
1970-12-31 62.1
1971-03-31 64.2
1971-06-30 65.5
1971-09-30 67.6
1971-12-31 70.2
1972-03-31 69.9
1972-06-30 71.4
1972-09-30 69.7
1972-12-31 69.9
1973-03-31 74.3
1973-06-30 75.0
1973-09-30 76.2
1973-12-31 78.5
1974-03-31 79.5
1974-06-30 80.5
1974-09-30 81.0
1974-12-31 80.5
1975-03-31 81.4
1975-06-30 84.7
1975-09-30 87.0
1975-12-31 87.9
1976-03-31 89.8
1976-06-30 94.4
1976-09-30 96.4
1976-12-31 97.0
1977-03-31 96.0
1977-06-30 102.2
1977-09-30 104.7
1977-12-31 102.8
1978-03-31 101.6
1978-06-30 110.1
1978-09-30 115.3
1978-12-31 109.6
1979-03-31 110.9
1979-06-30 109.7
1979-09-30 115.5
1979-12-31 117.5
1980-03-31 116.7
1980-06-30 124.5
1980-09-30 120.7
1980-12-31 121.3
1981-03-31 119.0
1981-06-30 120.0
1981-09-30 124.3
1981-12-31 131.0
1982-03-31 126.6
1982-06-30 127.0
1982-09-30 134.4
1982-12-31 139.3
1983-03-31 136.7
1983-06-30 141.7
1983-09-30 155.4
1983-12-31 151.9
1984-03-31 150.8
1984-06-30 152.9
1984-09-30 155.0
1984-12-31 160.9
1985-03-31 161.0
1985-06-30 169.1
1985-09-30 169.7
1985-12-31 181.3
1986-03-31 184.8
1986-06-30 183.9
1986-09-30 190.8
1986-12-31 211.3
1987-03-31 196.4
1987-06-30 212.3
1987-09-30 211.9
1987-12-31 222.6
1988-03-31 217.5
1988-06-30 227.6
1988-09-30 229.2
1988-12-31 238.4
1989-03-31 228.6
1989-06-30 231.8
1989-09-30 221.1
1989-12-31 226.8
1990-03-31 217.9
1990-06-30 231.4
1990-09-30 234.4
1990-12-31 235.1
1991-03-31 241.0
1991-06-30 247.5
1991-09-30 258.6
1991-12-31 266.5
1992-03-31 265.8
1992-06-30 276.9
1992-09-30 279.7
1992-12-31 295.0
1993-03-31 298.5
1993-06-30 313.1
1993-09-30 319.4
1993-12-31 332.0
1994-03-31 337.3
1994-06-30 347.6
1994-09-30 353.0
1994-12-31 364.5
1995-03-31 363.7
1995-06-30 372.6
1995-09-30 367.7
1995-12-31 378.2
1996-03-31 377.1
1996-06-30 383.9
1996-09-30 383.9
1996-12-31 390.9
1997-03-31 395.1
1997-06-30 410.9
1997-09-30 411.8
1997-12-31 430.7
1998-03-31 433.2
1998-06-30 439.8
1998-09-30 446.0
1998-12-31 452.1
1999-03-31 465.7
1999-06-30 484.9
1999-09-30 489.0
1999-12-31 478.0
2000-03-31 501.7
2000-06-30 505.0
2000-09-30 511.4
2000-12-31 511.7
2001-03-31 523.9
2001-06-30 535.1
2001-09-30 534.1
2001-12-31 551.7
2002-03-31 575.4
2002-06-30 590.7
2002-09-30 604.2
2002-12-31 629.4
2003-03-31 641.5
2003-06-30 652.1
2003-09-30 656.1
2003-12-31 666.7
2004-03-31 674.1
2004-06-30 687.4
2004-09-30 700.3
2004-12-31 717.8
2005-03-31 717.3
Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr and the little shrub by this chart were the worst offenders when it came to federal spending.
By contrast, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did a much better job. Funny,
huh
|
|
|
|
|
drubt
Jul 22, 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #16 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2004
Posts: 196
|
you guys are ass holes. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 23, 2005, 7:14 AM
Post #17 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: you guys are ass holes. :wink:
Keen observation, in addition to the brilliant and insightful content.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jul 25, 2005, 11:54 AM
Post #18 of 18
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Bumblie maybe even you can understand this chart. It is federal debt by year. If you need any help let me know thanks.
Bob,
I've concluded that you have the reading comprehension of a child with an IQ around 80. Time and time again you display an exceptional inability to grasp the obvious.
You could just be trolling me, but I've yet to see you display the wit or intellect that are key in trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
