Source of US national debt. Is it true?

Post Reply New Topic

Here is a claim about who was in charge when most of the US national debt was incurred. Does anyone know whether it is true? link

the us national debt, dont get me started on the us national debt.

lets see if I have it right, dems pass massive social welfare programs and it's the republicans fault there is a large debt. lets ignore the fact when Reagan became president the WW2 generation was heading into retirement and have lived a lot longer than was expected when elderly welfare programs where passed by the dems.

lets also ignore the fact the dems taxed factories out of the country and revenue from factory jobs dived and the nation became a country of service industry workers paying hardly any taxes.

If a liberal had a deep thought, it would be amazing.

exactly how much had the dems saved up to fund the WW2 generations retirement needs prior to Reagan stepping into office, was their social security pension fund 70% funded ? 80% funded ? or more like not funded at all and Reagan found a draw full of IOU's in the social security trust fund and 40 million people with their hand out saying where is their money ?

congress has the real financial control and it wasn't until 1994 when newt took over that spending was restrained, but the moron america public countered the efforts of the republican congress by going on an import buying spree and pissed away the financial restraints put in place by the great newt and proceeded to nearly destroy the nations economy with their greed & stupidity.

Oh, silly me. I thought it was the fact that Reagan spent ridiculous amounts of money to start a new arms race. I thought the problem was that Bush spent more than all previous presidents combined while lowering taxes. Clearly, the real problem is those bad Democrats, who all our economic woes can be blamed on. There were still old people collecting social security when Clinton was in office, but he managed to run a budget surplus.

And it was a Republican President & and a Republican Congress that started a $ 3 trillion war, cut taxes and hugely expanded entitlement spending - shifting from budget surpluses to massive deficits. Neither US party stands today for fiscal sanity, but the Bush Republicans least of all. I'm not convinced tax-and-spend is worse than borrow-and-spend.

zzzzz......um, what? Did I hear something? Nevermind......zzzz.....zzzzzzzzzzzzz





zzzzz.....ZZZZZZ.....ZZ...zzzzz....zzz.....ZZZZZZZZZZ....zzzzzzz...........Industry.......factory....zzzzzzz......zzzzzzz......revenue.........zzzzzzzzzz......ZZZZZ.........taxes.........

The Dems understand that "tax-and-spend" is how government works, Republicans on the other hand are stupid and think they can pay for everything by borrowing money because their corporate masters don't want to pay taxes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... f/hist.pdf

You think what you have been told to think, try looking up the facts

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... #Table_2_3

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/militar ... e-size.php

Not quite, both parties want massive spending, whatever they may claim to theoretically support; the Dems don't want massive changes in taxation, while the Republicans want much lower taxes. Both are fiscally irresponsible, but there's a question of degree, with the Bushian Republicans having a worse track record than pretty much anybody else. Bush the Elder and Bill Clinton can both claim they stood for fiscal sanity; in this respect they're totally out of the mainstream of their respective parties.
A truth that no US politician will dare utter is that, since the federal debt is growing faster than the economy and has for some time, at least one of the following is inevitable eventually:

-substantially higher taxes
-cutting military spending
-cutting spending on entitlements, including Social Security

It's not your political opinions that I find fault with, Johnnie. It's how you treat other people. When you've learned to behave respectfully toward other people, you will be taken far more seriously when you want to discuss your favorite subject. I don't even want to discuss it with you because, whether or not you have a valid point, having any kind of discussion with you is completely unpleasant and unproductive. It doesn't improve my ability to think level-headedly about the issues that face this country. It just gets me stressed and upset. You devalue this entire discussion board with your presence. You're a disgrace. It doesn't have anything to do with the validity of your views. It's how you affect the flow of discussion. You turn it all negative and hateful, and it doesn't produce anything at all.

what's a matter Biff, you can dish it out, but can't take it. You liberals blow off at the mouth and than when given facts to prove your propaganda wrong have a temper tantrum. To a small child i would cut a lot of slack and attempt to provide the facts in some sort of warm & fuzzy manner, but to adults who should know better than to swallow the news blindly, I really don't care about presentation, they should be adult enough to deal with a counter veiw not suger coated.

just because your mommy babied you too much ain't my problem, you're in the adult world now, be a man and deal with it.

johnnie, giving a 300-page pile of figures that we all know you probably haven't read is not very productive, nor is your constant sarcasm and adversarial approach. Also, many of your facts are just wrong. How does buying imports affect the federal budget deficit? How do Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility when they spend just as much as (if not more than) the Democrats? Reagan ran deficits because he cut taxes without cutting spending. W runs deficits because he cut taxes while starting a very expensive war- under Bush America has reached record debt levels. You really can't blame that on Clinton, no matter how hard you try.