posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
In response to the Man Behind the Sheet....er...mask...
Man, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. You clearly don't know the difference between a budget deficit and a national debt.
FACT: Bush inherited a national debt of about 6 trillion.
FACT: That number has swelled to over 10 trillion, the largest increase under any single presidency.
FACT: 4 trillion is more than 1.5 trillion.
FACT: The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act is an attempt to get America out of the recession caused by Bush's policies. If we weren't in a
recession, there wouldn't be such a bill, nor would there be talk of government spending to revitalize the economy.
FACT: There is a difference of opinion about whether government spending can do more to stimulate the economy than private spending. It is nothing
more than that, a difference of opinion.
FACT: A basic difference between the two parties is their opinion on the above issue. Democrats traditionally believe in increasing government (size
and spending) while Republicans traditionally argue against "bigger government" - EXCEPT when it comes to womens' rights, which they believe should
be regulated by more government.
Now, back to the economic situation:
Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).
2. He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
3. He deregulated Wall Street speculators. That bailout (Bush's bailout)has now "invested" $1T
(Perhaps you could explain these actions jive with the virtuous conservative principals you espouse).
The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133
billion. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that 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 his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in
2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing
the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has typically been around $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never
increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result
of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In
2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was
twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.
In your last post you claimed that Bush spent only $500 billion. You are clearly mistaken, since even the most CONSERVATIVE estimates put the cost of
the war in Iraq at around $600 billion.
Now, YOU go read some more, learn how to add and subtract, and come back when you're ready to have a mature discussion involving FACTS.
Until then, I'm content to believe your unwarranted, vitriolic criticisms of my President are borne from something other than your concern for the
country...I don't HAVE to call you a retard...you're doing a pretty good job of proving that you are...
[edit on 11-3-2009 by nicholaswa]