Dana, if you have ANY proof of this, let’s see it. Otherwise, this goes from kneejerk partisan baloney to the level of personal insult. And it makes you an idiot.
Isn’t it at all interesting that under a Democratic administration “government IS the problem”, but under Republicans, Iran/contra, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatamala, Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing crash, the market crash of ‘08, doubling the debt, increasing deficets (instead of decreasing the deficet as both Clinton AND Obama administrations have managed, even with Republican oppostion), betrayal of our veterans as GHW and W did in ordering VA to reject their claims to make the Pentagon “look better”, Scooter Libby, on, and on, these problems didn’t exist. Haven isn’t the only city with “troubles” any time Republicans occupy the White House, but of course, then it isn’t government, where Repbulicans consistently work to make sure it IS the problem.
“deficet” is NOT “debt”. the rise in the debt has slowed, not increased speed since Bush left. BTW the debt at the end of Bush’s last budget was right at $12 Trillion. From 12 to 16 isn’t doubling the debt, and actually counting the costs of war in the budget did increase the appearance of “debt” post-Bush policy.
As I recall, the cost of the wars were paid for during the Bush Administration through special appropriation bills rather than in the budget proper. The Obama Administration rolled it in to the budget. When conservatives gripe about the difference in the Bush and Obama budgets, they tend to leave out the Bush Administrations separate war appropriation bills.Let’s not forget that the 2009 budget was drafted and approved during the Bush Administration.
And you guys who are talking about the slowing growth of the debt are only looking short-term. They are anticipating that the debt is going to rise again in the next 3-5 years. By 2039, assuming we are still around by then, we will be looking at 18-1/2% spent every year on SS, Health Programs, and interest payments on the debt. That’s excluding everything else, and that’s considering an historical average of about 18-19% for the entire US Government, not just those couple pieces. That, to me, is of great concern. And if we continue down this path we run the troubling risk of increasing our debt to GDP ratio to alarming levels.
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 9 years ago
Dana, if you have ANY proof of this, let’s see it. Otherwise, this goes from kneejerk partisan baloney to the level of personal insult. And it makes you an idiot.
Observer fo Irony over 9 years ago
And here I thought it was a flashback to the Kennedy years.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
Isn’t it at all interesting that under a Democratic administration “government IS the problem”, but under Republicans, Iran/contra, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatamala, Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing crash, the market crash of ‘08, doubling the debt, increasing deficets (instead of decreasing the deficet as both Clinton AND Obama administrations have managed, even with Republican oppostion), betrayal of our veterans as GHW and W did in ordering VA to reject their claims to make the Pentagon “look better”, Scooter Libby, on, and on, these problems didn’t exist. Haven isn’t the only city with “troubles” any time Republicans occupy the White House, but of course, then it isn’t government, where Repbulicans consistently work to make sure it IS the problem.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
“deficet” is NOT “debt”. the rise in the debt has slowed, not increased speed since Bush left. BTW the debt at the end of Bush’s last budget was right at $12 Trillion. From 12 to 16 isn’t doubling the debt, and actually counting the costs of war in the budget did increase the appearance of “debt” post-Bush policy.
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
As I recall, the cost of the wars were paid for during the Bush Administration through special appropriation bills rather than in the budget proper. The Obama Administration rolled it in to the budget. When conservatives gripe about the difference in the Bush and Obama budgets, they tend to leave out the Bush Administrations separate war appropriation bills.Let’s not forget that the 2009 budget was drafted and approved during the Bush Administration.
Wraithkin over 9 years ago
And you guys who are talking about the slowing growth of the debt are only looking short-term. They are anticipating that the debt is going to rise again in the next 3-5 years. By 2039, assuming we are still around by then, we will be looking at 18-1/2% spent every year on SS, Health Programs, and interest payments on the debt. That’s excluding everything else, and that’s considering an historical average of about 18-19% for the entire US Government, not just those couple pieces. That, to me, is of great concern. And if we continue down this path we run the troubling risk of increasing our debt to GDP ratio to alarming levels.
echoraven over 9 years ago
Now you get it.