At the present rate we are scheduled to dip into unrecoverable debt in 2015 ( then total economic collapse ) if nothing is done to correct the debt ceilings.
Ron Paul 2012 will kill 1,000,000,000,000 per year for 4 years
I have a chart in front of me,it show the debt from 2001-2019 at 2011tax cuts for the rich a Bush debt is equal to both the both wars & Tarp.Obama's bailout measures is 1/5th those & the tax cuts,wars & Tarp are more than half of the total dept.Of the total debt Obama owns about a 10th the rest is accumulated under his watch but was started by Bush between 2001 and 2008.Stop the tax cuts for the rich,stop the wars and no more bail outs problem solved.Google"Projected debt under current policies"
@Ralphdraw3 oh i care about Deficit, and sucks Republicans dug us in a deep whole but Obama took that torch and dug us deeper, at this point Both Republicans and Democrats both will spend cause there intentions arent to Budget cut anymore since they know they can just print the shiiit, but yea dont be like the Main Stream media and only post information to feed ur agenda, post Obama spending too sucka
Where is Obama on this chart?????? looks bias because obama has spent more than bush did within 2 year. when I say spent more I mean money that we don't have. obama's deficit is 3x bush's
@Ralphdraw3 Not only that, but Obama's deficit is NOT 3 times Bush's. That's a lie, but republicans don't deal in facts & reality. Obama has sucked, yes, but the debt that Obama ran up in his first year was MOSTLY caused by BUSH!!! Because Bush hid the wars debt (didn't put it on the books). Obama put the wars debt ON the books, so it LOOKED like Obama spent more than Bush. Bull crap. Typical lying ass republicans & their distorted facts.
@Ralphdraw3 I was in the Marine Corps when George W. Bush added $2 trillion dollars in debt with a R-Congress. The next $3 trillion was Bush & a D-Congress from 2006-2008. Then Obama added $5 tril. in the first 2 years of office with a D-Congress. America realized enough was enough and elected a R-Congress not only firing Democrats but Republicans (with the nomination) who were for spending. Our debt has froze "some-what" but the dollar still loses value. Regardless both parties have failed us.
@waynerd23 The Democrats control the Senate after the 2010 election - 55 to 45, I believe. Tea Party candidates for Senate in 2010 lost in California, Delaware, Connecticut, Alaska, Minnesota and Nevada.
@Ralphdraw3 Ok, but we have to both agree that both parties handed out bailouts putting the debt and risk of bankrupt companies upon the taxpayers. I'm going to look into this debt deeper just for an even greater understanding but from what I do know this graph doesn't portray the whole story. For example, if the eco. is good I might buy $20,000 worth of gov. bonds, they are now in debt to me $20,000+interest. So this graph can be misleading in more ways than one.
@Ralphdraw3 Lets just stop bickering on who spends the most its a pointless argument they both spend like money is just made out of thin air......oh wait!
@Ralphdraw3 now are we paying attention to national debt because national dept went over 5trillion mark under his administration. public debt did go down intergovernmental holdings sky rocketed up. National dept is based of public Debt + inter holdings. So on the surface yea they balanced the budget and had a 263.2 billion surplus but in actuality the national dept was still going through the roof.
@DrunkenGodMode This video is not on the national debt or public debt but on the annual deficit each year for the 5 presidents. Even including various surpluses in government trust funds (Social Security, FAA, Highway etc..) , since Reagan, the annual deficits have been rising - except under Clinton where they fell. Of course Bush43 came into office with a surplus and projected budget surpluses, he promptly began deficit spending.
@Ralphdraw3 all this is really saying is republicans cause a deficit because they lowered taxes. That's why you don't have obama up there because hes keeping bushes cuts plus hes adding more programs in. national debt has plenty to do with this because the deficit deals with budget minus revenues. Cut taxes equal negative revenue which equals higher deficit. Look at the % of gdp it mirrors this. more money for market spending more economic growth. Simple econ.
The nations debt should always be seen as a function of its GDP.
Either way it's a growing consensus that the GOP is funded by wealthy foreigners who want to funnel american currency out of the country, like foxNews' owner Rupert Murdoch.
America has allowed many people to gain wealth and prosperity, if they don't wanna give back what they own (like our bailout money), there could be hell to pay ;)
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China. I will work with Paul Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
@GOPkicksbutt Your plan is a good start, but it is not far reaching enough:
What needs to happen is; all wage earners making over $500K a year, are immediately untaxable, their rate is 0%. Then, ALL earners under $250K a year, are to live in government supplied camps, and are taxed at 100%. This will put so much money in the hands of the employers, that we'll be continually building more of the camps for the workers, and America will be joyously prosperous once again!
@wsoxman cut spending - get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya - then cut the Pentagon budget... close down our 100's of overseas military bases etc...
@Ralphdraw3 Good plane to get out of the wars to cut spending. Closing 100% of the overseas military bases ain't to smart. How about cutting some entitlement benefits? You know. The Pyramid Schemes of Medicare and Social Security. Any system that lets you collect 3+X the amount you put in, is a system designed to fail. In this case, the youth of today won't see a penny unless there are changes to the benefits.
I wonder why the young people are not marching in the streets in protest?
@AtibbsSPARTAN Yes, I agree, Bush Administration over his 2nd term was very bad. Then again he had an out of control spending of a Democrat lead Congress.
Leave room in history for the 1 term Obama years where spending only leads to buying votes and talking about cutting, is just lies.
@AtibbsSPARTAN Then don't give them fuel for their fire. Educate yourself on which canidate will do a job right the first time and don't let a two party system tell you who you can vote for.
Damn right. I was really against this depiction of democrats. I didn't vote for republicans in '08 and I won't in '12 if the best they can come up with is palenty, gingrich or romney
@AtibbsSPARTAN So you are good with the status qua? Vote for the "D" no matter what they PROMISE YOU>
I bet you believe that the Democrats are for the poor guy. They have been in charge for years and what has it gotten some poor folks.........................nothing but welfare.
@AtibbsSPARTAN So if you are a Libertarian, why the hell would you support BIG GOVERNMENT with Democrat leadership? If you were truly a Libertarian you wouldn't vote for any of the bums. My vote goes to John Stossel. To bad he ain't running. But American don't care about well thought out management. They vote for the person with the most media coverage and biggest bullshit line.
Not sure where or when I supported big government under a democrat banner although big government under the title of the Republican party is even worse. As long as people associate George W. with fiscal conservancy we are in big trouble
@AtibbsSPARTAN Obama and the Democrats have grown government by about 20% in the past 4 years.
Obamacare will require 16k additional IRS workers. Yes, the Rep and George W spent our money like idiots, but this Congress, under Obama is making Bush look like a cheapskate.
Americans are still waiting on that CHANGE the Dems promised. I say throw all the bums out and start with new people that have experience in the real world. Not fat cat lawyers which is 80% of Congress.
@AtibbsSPARTAN No, there's Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum. Anyone could do a better job than Obama & the previous Congress under Pelosi that couldn't even pass a budget in over 800 days, despite control over both Houses of Congress and the White House (& P.S.-that's their job!) If they had wanted to do anything "good", they had the power. They were too busy shoving Obamacare down our throats & spending money on roadside signs praising the Stimulus.
@AtibbsSPARTAN So every time the Democrats want to reform spending is NEVER. Their solution is more revenue/higher taxes and larger credit limit. The Tea Party wants both parties out of Washington.
@surfsalem7 During Carter's 4 years, the deficits were small and the Congress was Democratic. When Reagan came in with his tax cuts and trickle down economics, deficits skyrocketed.
Carter is the president, other then Obama now... that is remembered least for his economic soundness. Sorry man, but I'm not going to merely take your word for it when you are clearly bias.
@surfsalem7 Bush43 had a Republican Congress for four years. Clinton had a Democratic Congress from 1993 to 1995. Under REagan, the Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 straight years.
@Ralphdraw3 Bush jr is literally the only Republican president you could make that claim. And in case you forgot... which ya did... it doesn't matter if the president's party controls the Senate, without the House his agenda will not get passed the House. Kinda like now... Obama's socialist agenda is halted by the Republicans in the House because as you should know, he needs the House to pass his agenda, like he did for two years (which is why we are further in debt then all pres before him).
@surfsalem7 Reagan got his tax cuts through. So Remind me again why Reagan and his Republican Senate didn't stop the spending and balance the budget. Trickle down - Supply side failed...
Oh that's right Cheney says "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
@Ralphdraw3 I wasn't born yet.. but if I know anything about Democrats, the Democrats in control of the House at the time did it for political reasons. At least back then they apparently listened to the voices of the American people. Can't say the same for the Democrats of today.
You're forgetting that Clinton's administration coincided with the .COM Boom leading into the 21st Century. You're little chart is completely misleading, because Congress is mainly in charge of the deficit.
Cut the spending...who cares who got us here ..... cut SPENDING what is so damn hard about that. I get no money from the govt. Slash spending, what they did today by cutting 38 billion is a JOKE, start by cutting all programs by 20% across the board. If it is not cut then I say lets have a civil war and lets fight it out in the streets, the capitalists will take clean out the garbage in the cities, trust me.
Congress passes spending bills that the President can veto. The president passes spending bills that congress can vote off. And despite this balance the republicans manage to skyrocket the fucking debt repeatedly. No one learns their lessons because democrats are morons who can hold a straight face under public scrutiny and the republicans are master liars and deceivers.
@tberthel Presidents propose things - like tax cuts to the rich (Bush) and wars against countries that did not attack us (Bush wanting war against Iraq).
@tberthel Actually, it is the President, BY LAW, that has to submit the budget. Then Congress takes what the President submits to them and they go over it. Approving of some, disapproving of some. Which is why the contentious committee debates always break out. Usually over how much of the President's spending they will approve, or whether to cut something, or fund something else. Once they approve of what is known as the "President's Budget", it is then sent back for his signature.
Ummm, you cut your chart off that shows Obama spending more than Bush. Also, the house controls the purse, your graph should display who had the majority in the house. I won't argue that Republicans are to blame, but let's be fair. Obama has outspent even Bush, who spent more than all presidents combined, and now Obama wants to spend 1.2 trillion more than we take in (ie deficit spending), and the Republicans want to spend half a trillion more than we take in.
@IngloriusBastard11- HA! Don't forget Target, they paid 0% last year. Most of the biggest corps filter their revenue through S-Corporations accompanied by fraudulent write offs, let alone foreign revenue. Look it up on the IRS.gov site, you'll then see why (R)'s champion the term "small business"..it's merely nothing but them creating the illusion that they're referencing that folksy Mom and Pop store that's been in the family / neighborhood for years...Ridiculously FAR from the truth.
@Ralphdraw3 the fair retail sales tax is better than a "flat tax". that's what canada has basically and they're a lot happier with their taxes than we are ours.
Reagan also cut programs that were assisting the mental health programs in the United States so that he could come off as some macho asshole and spend billions on defense. He did nothing more than create havoc, destitution and misery for the lower middle class and poor.
All the time Ronald Reagan was in the White House he kept looking for the boom man, the gaffer, the Director and his make-up artist because he thought he was acting in some kind of damn movie.
To pay for the war Bush cut poverty programs to pay for things. The poor has been our foundation. Look at us now. Reagan also busted a union starting a mess of low wages. Not good for the poor. "watch?v=L9zqDZkv9eA" People see now, not another Bush! Also people are seeing how greedy the Tea party is! "watch?v=aPFCJvdzvi8"
Confusion is a sign of intelligence ,certainty is stupidity in a mask .Rumors is of a war of ideas and pressures us to choose which side we're on while in doing so we loose all sense of rationality
I'm just me in Europe and it seems evident I'm just hearing the loudest voices .But there's a problem : Geography is not the only interpretation of (Distance)
reagan, bush, and bush II are responsible for over 2/3rd's of america's debt, including the 2009 budget proposal submitted by george bush II. who btw didn't include war expenditures.
it was ronald reagan who turned us from a lender nation to a debtor nation.
what doesn't get expressed enough is the republican agenda to waste the public treasure while in office, then when dems take over there's no money left and they scream social programs need to be cut. it's diabolical what they do.
Do you not know that the Republicans under Clinton were the ones that were pushing for a balanced budget so badly? The Republicans wanted it done in 7 years and Clinton wanted it done in 9 years... The goal was eventually changed to 7 by Clinton and they almost reached it in FY2000...
And Democrats were proposing bigger budgets than the Republicans under Reagan, who, by the way, wanted to cut much more spending than the Democrats and RINOs let him...
@TheEllipsis731 What happened to the Republicans in the Congress after Clinton, when they started spending like drunken sailors?
BTW Reagan NEVER submitted a balanced budget proposal to Congress - Reagan didn't even try... And I believe Reagan was proposing MORE spending on defense than the Congress wanted. I am told that the Republican controlled the Senate under Reagan.
@Ralphdraw3 Once again, I do not defend the 2000-2008 Republicans spending, except the Bush tax cuts...
And Reagan did cut non-defense spending... It was the defense budget that blew up deficits, which he is legitimately to blame for...
But you repeatedly deny credit to the Republicans under Clinton... You should be praising them just like you praised Carter (who had ruined the economy to inflation and high taxes)... Hold them to your own standards instead of partisan double standards...
"Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act* that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich"
@TheEllipsis731 If Republicans wanted to reduce the debt, why did they vote against the 1993 Debt Reduction Act? There are only a very small minority of Republicans such as Ron Paul who care about reducing debt. But it's obvious that the Republican leadership isn't concerned about debt reduction... because, if they were, the debt wouldn't have grown so much under Republican administrations.
As for Obama, he inherited the spent surplus, failing economy & TARP created by the Bush administration.
@MarmaladeINFP There are plenty of reasons to oppose something... Maybe the 1993 Act had tax increases or something, I'm not sure, but the Democrats still were the ones that didn't want to cut as much as Republicans did...
As for Obama? He voted for every last dime of spending that he "inherited"... He is also INCREASING spending in many areas.. PAYGO saved less than 1% of the budget last year, his spending freeze only applies to 12% of the budget, and his debt reduction study saves like .0028%
@TheEllipsis731 You are a lying sack of shit. Obama did not vote to go to war in Iraq. He was one of a few that had the balls to say no to you cumdrunk republicans. And contrary to republicans belief when you bring truth to the situation, how much money did republicans run up our national debt. Try $11.2T worth. That was the price tag for two wars, medicare part D and tax breaks for the wealthy. Hell, hedge fund mangers pay less taxes than any of us. Quit talking shit and look at the facts.
@teabaggersblow Look at the facts?! Hedge fund managers pay less?! How bout the top 5% of the wealthiest Americans earn about 40% of the income in America, but pay about 60% of all the taxes... And Obama wasn't even in the senate in 2002 to "not vote to go to war"... And he also voted in FAVOR of every war funding request from the President!!! And I don't support Medicare Part D...
And I already said that I do not excuse the spending that when on from 2000 to 2008... Can you read?
@TheEllipsis731 Under Clinton, the Democratic Congress 1992-94, raised taxes to help balance the budget. Also, the Republicans wanted Clinton to go to war with Iraq in 1998. Clinton refused.
@Ralphdraw3 I know Clinton raised taxes... This is not knew information lol... He also cut capital gains taxes...
But I have an off topic question... Would you balance the budget right now if you could, and, if so, how... Since you are so critical of deficits, I want to know what you would do...
ps. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts and ending the war doesn't even come close to balancing it...
@TheEllipsis731 1) Raise the cap on Social security withholding tax 2) means test S.S. 3) treat capital gains as regular income 4) raise the top marginal rate to 40% 5) reduce defense spending by 20% 6) end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 7) close overseas military bases 8) raise the estate tax to 50% 9) increase the gas tax
Not being critical here, but how does raising the cap on SS withholding tax help the deficit? Its already got a surplus large enough to pay all claims at 100% until 2037 and can pay 80% of all claims indefinitely after that. The issue is the government stole that surplus and Republicans are now saying they will not be paying back the money they borrowed from Social Security and that's why the program has to be cut.
@Russlem Good point. Maybe they should take S.S. completely off budget and into the "lockbox" so the politicians can't raid the account for other kinds of spending.
@Ralphdraw3 Yes you are correct that wacko "Republicans spent like drunken sailors" 2000-07, BUT COME ON NOW, how does that crap grant a OK for The Dems to take our debt from $10t to $14t in 4 years?
Its like "Well they did it, why can't we?"
We need to stop the party line bickering and start fixing this crap NOW.
I'm still looking for how much waste and fraud has been cut under Obama. Just the same old rhetoric of a professional politician that is ALWAYS campaigning for President.
@wsoxman Well those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are expensive; and so are those tax cuts to the truly wealthy - they are very expensive. As is the Medicare Part D program that the Republican Congress passed and Bush signed.
Yup, the best thing about being a neo-con is that you can say the exact opposite of the truth and all your dumb followers will believe it: "I'm a fiscal conservative". Sure you are Ronnie.
The question of why isn't Obama on here is superficial, some may argue the graph is also. Bush undercut Obama when the budget was passed, and he knew it. There's plenty of reasons that dictate Federal spending, debts and deficits..allot of them are not in the President nor Congress's absolute control. Once one understands our ass backwards monetary system, you'll understand why Obama needed to spend to avoid a collapse. We live in a debt based society, without debt there would be no cash.
@beatsbytheory Without debt their would be no cash? So you must be thrilled by the deficits of Reagan and Bush, huh?
Obama has been picking and choosing which big corporations are worthy enough for him to give massive amounts of money, essentially awarding their failure and establishing the idea that even if you fail, the government will be there to bail you out. The companies that acted responsibly and ethically and avoided the crisis got no money.
@zeecee1-Which corporations did Obama HIMSELF specifically choose to "award" money? Wtf? Of course the companies that acted responsibly and avoided failure got no money, that's a ridiculous statement.
@beatsbytheory Right. So, the message he sent was: Act irresponsibly, get money from the government. Don't worry too much about success, because if you fail, the government will always be there to bail you out! Act responsibly, you don't get any of the millions we gave to the other guys... sound fair, huh?
Obama and the Democrats chose to give bailout money to hundreds of companies. Wells Fargo, Chrysler, GM... all the companies that were struggling got rewarded. The successful ones, nothing.
@zeecee1 Wtf are you talking about? TARP was signed by Bush, not Obama..he may have been in favor of it, but he didn't draft the language of it. The GM situation was a loan not necessarily a "bailout"...that money has to be paid back WITH INTEREST. You don't even make sense, corporations got / get their "rewards" from all the extensive tax cuts they've been receiving for the past decade and they've now just been renewed.
@beatsbytheory Oh gosh. Yes, those awful tax cuts. You can't tax a corporation, by the way.... ALL they do is pass the extra money they have to pay onto the CONSUMER! They raise the price of their goods/service... a tax on a company is essentially a tax on the consumers who do business with that company. So if you cut taxes on the company then you cut taxes for the consumer.
And Obama's budget doesn't cut taxes by the way, it raises them by $989 billion over the next 10 years.
@zeecee1 I'd like to see some statistics other than this simple post, because other than that this just seems like more corporatist bullshit. You mean the benevolent multinationals that raise prices, outsource American jobs for cheaper foreign labour in Dubai, and whose lobbying for deregulation has corrupted the electoral processes? It's a lose/lose for consumers as well who have less to spend due to a shrinking job sector, an neocon policies like yours exacerbate things further.
@beatsbytheory TARP - signed by Bush who sided with the Democrats, not the GOP - was followed by a number of other bailouts by the Obama Administration, a few other bank ones and of course the auto bailout. A healthy chunk of this money has yet to be paid back. What's worse, the Democrats sent the message that if you are big and powerful and you fail - count on the government to bail you out! This provides an incentive for companies to continue risky practices.
@beatsbytheory Well said, i completely agree. Plus, the automakers are paying back just like the wall street. Republicans don't like it that automakers flourished. They wanted them to fail so they can rub it on Obama.
@beatsbytheory Tax cuts? Lets talk about the 50+% of the citizens that pay NO INCOME TAX. NOthing. These people don't even do community services. There are just leaches on the taxpayers. "Spread The Wealth" as long as its someone else s wealth. Lets collect more tax dollars to be spent on waste and fraud programs.
Why would some rich person want to hand over more of their money to be wasted on a mis managed government?
In 28 years since 1981 (before President Obama) we had 20 years of Republican presidents who gave us 20 deficits. Reagan & Bush QUADRUPLED the debt before Clinton and Bush DOUBLED it again after Clinton.
Under Clinton, the only Democratic president the last 28 years before Obama, there were four surpluses and Clinton REDUCED the national debt by $600 billion.
2) Congress holds the purse strings, not the Pres. I'd like to see graphs with three color codings: Blue for when D's have majorities in both houses, Red for when R's have majorities in both houses, and purple when the house and senate are divided. The Pres can veto spending bills, but this tends to cost them a lot of political capital.
@dookiecheez What do you mean by prosperity? We have been losing manufacturing jobs for two decades. Many of our major cities are dying. The median wage/salary has been stagnant. Individual debt in this country has sky-rocketed.
I mean this just shows deficit and spending. I'd just like to see what it looks like when you also show growths or decreases in prosperity. I know during Clinton there was a massive increase in prosperity for example. It just might add a little depth to it.
There is no way to pay back money plus interest when the principle was created from nothing to begin with.
The math is easy, don't let the A-holes make it look harder than it is.
The banks create the money from nothing. Then they "loan" it to the govt. The govt. then spends the counterfeit money. It is just that simple folks, lets not get tangled up in meaningless discussions about "theroetical" money. That is what got us into this situation to begin with.
These are the creatures you voted back into power: 1989, after 8 yrs of republican (Reagan) rule 160 billion of taxpayers $ to bail out S&L's. 2002-3, AG's from 50 states & the FBI report that predatory mortgage lending is out of control. 2004, 30-1 credit reserves. 2008, after 8 yrs of RNC rule TRILLIONS of taxpayer $ to bail out banks. The only republican reaction to the above? "They're all Marxists" or "what about Barney Frank, Pelosi, Soros, CRA" (anything they can think of).
Gee, I love this, a pissing contest to see who can do the better job of destroy the country. As long as morons continue to elect Republicans or Democrats (excluding the two exceptions of Rand and Ron Paul the only two legislator willing to cut spending across the board) Government will continue to grow and the deficits will continue to grow with them. The country is doomed. Get ready to bend over and get the New World Order shoved up your rear end.
Another interesting FACT is the comparison on WAGE GROWTH between the parties. Over several decades, under Democratic presidents, wages grew both FASTER and more EQUALLY than under Repub prez's. Under Repub prez's, wages grew LESS FAST and the RICH got RICHER FASTER while lower-income American's wages GREW SLOWEST.
Again, a Democratic prez was handed a huge mess and it'll take time to get out, but giving Repubs any more control in D.C. will b a disaster for the middle-class and the poor.
The reason Republicans wants to make it worse for this nation is called Shock Treatment. The idea is that if the person goes through shock enough they become complient. Shock treatment is Milton Friedman's brainchild. His Noble Prize should be revoked because of his advocay of shock treatment. Some of the shock is Courts picking Bush Jr instead of the people, lied into wars, deficit doesn't matter, housing collapse, etc. shock after shock. Republicans are calling for a Corporate control of govt
govt spending worsens the budget in the short-term, but can help in the long-term
tax cuts mean the govt will receive less money for the budget than it otherwise would - but revenue will still usually be up the next yr as it almost always is because of increases in population & businesses
The best thing we can do now is increase the MAX TAX RATE to balance the budget.
What hooey this is. If you have an upswing red curve and a downswing blue curve that follows it, and they are equal size (like regan & clinton's) then they have increased the debt by the same exact amount (only the repubs small increase came before its large increase, and the dems small increase came after its large increase) The bars stand for increases in debt! Not for levels of debt.
You forgot to show Obama after Bush. How do you think that measures up to Bush's spending.
@BarclayAvenue You misunderstand the graph - almost all of the years portrayed here there was deficit spending - hence the national debt increases every year. The graph shows the DIRECTION of the deficit spending - It increases under Republican presidents (fact) and it decreased under Clinton.
@Ralphdraw3 TErm deficit spending was not much differnt under Clinton than Reagan's 2nd term. You can argue Clinton was obliged to have a first year horrible deficit because he had to maintain the idiocy of the previous fiscal year, but that is a total copout.I agree he reduced " the increase" over teh course of years.but he started out with a big INCREASE in spending over the previous (Reagan's!) year. you credit him for reducing his own increase, AS IF you are looking at a Spending graph!!
@Ralphdraw3 Yeh...I noticed you got no answer from the ECON Man. Honestly, the right is beyond laughter on most issues. So much for fiscal responsibility. The day before 911 Donald Rumsfeld got on TV and grudgingly announced on a bad Monday that the Pentagon lost over a trillion dollars. It was unaccounted for and the loss was rising....uhhhh??? Excuse me? It sure looks interesting. I mean did he know a much larger, darker horse was coming?
@BarclayAvenue There are two equally crazy and pervasive ideas in American discourse right now, brought to us by the right wing television, newspaper, and radio networks:
1) Bush didn't catastrophically raise the deficit.
2) Obama's policies are different than Bush's policies.
Both of these are myths. Bush cut taxes for the rich and borrowed trillions, throwing it away on Iraq and lobbyists. Obama is continuing almost all of Bush's disastrous policies, even caving on the tax cuts.
@Turtleproof Agreed. and (2) is also brought to us by Democrats who would for like us to beleive the party is making a difference. They have differences but are the same party basically.
Clinton, Bush, Obama : NAFTA (Clinton), WTO Trade over Democracy (All), CodexAlimentarius (All ), banks and derivative products : blatant deregulation (Clinton) or no action (Bush Obama)
This graphic should be part of every Democratic candidate's campaign. It should be adopted as the unofficial logo of the Democratic Party as long as the Republicans keep spouting their lies about 'fiscal responsibility' and the Democrats being the party of 'big government'.
As long as the low information voters fall for the Two Santas strategy of the GOP, they'll keep doing this crap until the U.S. economy collapses completely...
Whats funny is you forgot to show Obama's first 2 years...they would have skyrocketed Bush's years.
But, I do understand, and Republicans are phonies just like the Democrats. They both suck -- saying one is better than the other is like pointing out the worst alcoholic at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. They're all drunks!
@Buergs323-1st, it's about not being so superficial. Understand that with the unemployment rate more people are spending the Govt's $ let alone the 2009 budget was passed and undercut by Bush. The only legislation that was spent on in 09 was the stimulus. The HC bill hasn't even been fully implemented to assess the speculative costs. Blame Wall St. and deregulation supporters for the current deficit.
@Buergs323-Well that was a mindless rebuttal..Lol. Since you're not paying attention and ignored the context, I said DEFICIT- not "debt". We can balance the deficit all we want, it's impossible to rid us of the National Debt without barter (*cough* gold) as long as The Fed exists. Contrary to what you know or believe, if there was no debt there would be nearly no money circulating.
At the present rate we are scheduled to dip into unrecoverable debt in 2015 ( then total economic collapse ) if nothing is done to correct the debt ceilings.
Ron Paul 2012 will kill 1,000,000,000,000 per year for 4 years
BlowtheBridge 3 weeks ago
The only thing that matters is spending.
The House proposes spending bills and the budget. Look at who controlled Congress in these years... that would be a better indicator.
ParrhesiaJoe 3 weeks ago
@tturcato Deleted for Paul bot spam. Ron Paul 4th Place 2012!!
Ralphdraw3 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
╭∩╮（⃕‿⃕）╭∩╮➔ CAPITALISM & COMMUNISM not EQUAL..!!!
DRUGLORDS+GOVERNMENT is COUNTERFEITING MONEY for SLAVERY..!!
BANKERS & DRUGLORDS screwed life & society in human history.
BURN DRUG LORDS ALIVE & OCCUPY THE WORLD.!!
CAPITALISM = NO REAL FREEDOM. WORLDS FAKE ECONOMY.
fight for LAST DROP BLOOD for MONEY & POWER = OPPORTUNIST MANIPULATIVE REALM LANDLORD GRABBER PIG ROYAL LAZY FAMILY.
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
koppellhinex 3 weeks ago
notice obamas not there and he jumped the debt from 9trillion to 15 trillion nice job with the bias
RedxRel 2 months ago 2
I have a chart in front of me,it show the debt from 2001-2019 at 2011tax cuts for the rich a Bush debt is equal to both the both wars & Tarp.Obama's bailout measures is 1/5th those & the tax cuts,wars & Tarp are more than half of the total dept.Of the total debt Obama owns about a 10th the rest is accumulated under his watch but was started by Bush between 2001 and 2008.Stop the tax cuts for the rich,stop the wars and no more bail outs problem solved.Google"Projected debt under current policies"
almostcapecod 2 months ago
Obama spend around 5 trillion as well. Anyways i dont care who spends it and who doesnt we need to cut a lot of things before we all fail.
CarlosEnriqueLara 2 months ago
reagan was once a democrat that loved FDR, he was also an FBI informant in the 1940s
themeaningoflife38 2 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 oh i care about Deficit, and sucks Republicans dug us in a deep whole but Obama took that torch and dug us deeper, at this point Both Republicans and Democrats both will spend cause there intentions arent to Budget cut anymore since they know they can just print the shiiit, but yea dont be like the Main Stream media and only post information to feed ur agenda, post Obama spending too sucka
jamezjr7979 2 months ago
Where is Obama on this chart?????? looks bias because obama has spent more than bush did within 2 year. when I say spent more I mean money that we don't have. obama's deficit is 3x bush's
JMF2479 5 months ago 13
@JMF2479 Where were you when George Bush and the Republican Congress added $5 trillion in debt?
Ralphdraw3 5 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 Not only that, but Obama's deficit is NOT 3 times Bush's. That's a lie, but republicans don't deal in facts & reality. Obama has sucked, yes, but the debt that Obama ran up in his first year was MOSTLY caused by BUSH!!! Because Bush hid the wars debt (didn't put it on the books). Obama put the wars debt ON the books, so it LOOKED like Obama spent more than Bush. Bull crap. Typical lying ass republicans & their distorted facts.
Lightmane321 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Ralphdraw3
@Ralphdraw3 I was in the Marine Corps when George W. Bush added $2 trillion dollars in debt with a R-Congress. The next $3 trillion was Bush & a D-Congress from 2006-2008. Then Obama added $5 tril. in the first 2 years of office with a D-Congress. America realized enough was enough and elected a R-Congress not only firing Democrats but Republicans (with the nomination) who were for spending. Our debt has froze "some-what" but the dollar still loses value. Regardless both parties have failed us.
waynerd23 2 months ago
@waynerd23 The Democrats control the Senate after the 2010 election - 55 to 45, I believe. Tea Party candidates for Senate in 2010 lost in California, Delaware, Connecticut, Alaska, Minnesota and Nevada.
Ralphdraw3 2 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 Ok, but we have to both agree that both parties handed out bailouts putting the debt and risk of bankrupt companies upon the taxpayers. I'm going to look into this debt deeper just for an even greater understanding but from what I do know this graph doesn't portray the whole story. For example, if the eco. is good I might buy $20,000 worth of gov. bonds, they are now in debt to me $20,000+interest. So this graph can be misleading in more ways than one.
waynerd23 2 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 Lets just stop bickering on who spends the most its a pointless argument they both spend like money is just made out of thin air......oh wait!
DrunkenGodMode 2 months ago
@DrunkenGodMode The last two years of the Clinton administration, the budget was balanced
Ralphdraw3 2 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 now are we paying attention to national debt because national dept went over 5trillion mark under his administration. public debt did go down intergovernmental holdings sky rocketed up. National dept is based of public Debt + inter holdings. So on the surface yea they balanced the budget and had a 263.2 billion surplus but in actuality the national dept was still going through the roof.
DrunkenGodMode 2 months ago
@DrunkenGodMode This video is not on the national debt or public debt but on the annual deficit each year for the 5 presidents. Even including various surpluses in government trust funds (Social Security, FAA, Highway etc..) , since Reagan, the annual deficits have been rising - except under Clinton where they fell. Of course Bush43 came into office with a surplus and projected budget surpluses, he promptly began deficit spending.
Ralphdraw3 2 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 all this is really saying is republicans cause a deficit because they lowered taxes. That's why you don't have obama up there because hes keeping bushes cuts plus hes adding more programs in. national debt has plenty to do with this because the deficit deals with budget minus revenues. Cut taxes equal negative revenue which equals higher deficit. Look at the % of gdp it mirrors this. more money for market spending more economic growth. Simple econ.
DrunkenGodMode 2 months ago
@JMF2479 Exactly what I was thinking.
hopbt 2 months ago
The nations debt should always be seen as a function of its GDP.
Either way it's a growing consensus that the GOP is funded by wealthy foreigners who want to funnel american currency out of the country, like foxNews' owner Rupert Murdoch.
America has allowed many people to gain wealth and prosperity, if they don't wanna give back what they own (like our bailout money), there could be hell to pay ;)
NanoEmpyrean 5 months ago
Comment removed
NanoEmpyrean 5 months ago
RON PAUL is the People's Choice in 2012! Join the REVOLUTION!
MountainMan19831 5 months ago
yea show BILL CLINTON 1.3 TRIILLION HE TOOK FROM SSI !!! DEMOCRATS PROPAGANDA !
readyxxi 6 months ago
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China. I will work with Paul Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
GOPkicksbutt 6 months ago
@GOPkicksbutt Your plan is a good start, but it is not far reaching enough:
What needs to happen is; all wage earners making over $500K a year, are immediately untaxable, their rate is 0%. Then, ALL earners under $250K a year, are to live in government supplied camps, and are taxed at 100%. This will put so much money in the hands of the employers, that we'll be continually building more of the camps for the workers, and America will be joyously prosperous once again!
TheNeoamor 6 months ago
kill the pledgers
free the country
NanoEmpyrean 6 months ago
Comment removed
NanoEmpyrean 6 months ago
Comment removed
NanoEmpyrean 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why should we keep granting american companies tax-breaks for their job creation in china?
Funneling american currency into a comunist, economic blackhole, doesn't seem to be helping our recovery.
NanoEmpyrean 6 months ago
Yep, but that music has to go
CenterNews 7 months ago
@CenterNews LOL Don't like italian opera? I could go with just instrumental and/or the blues..
Ralphdraw3 7 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 The Blues please! :)
CenterNews 7 months ago
@wsoxman bye bye - you don't like my video, make your own..
Ralphdraw3 8 months ago
@wsoxman Senator Vitter(R) - prostitutes
Ralphdraw3 8 months ago
@wsoxman cut spending - get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya - then cut the Pentagon budget... close down our 100's of overseas military bases etc...
Ralphdraw3 8 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 Good plane to get out of the wars to cut spending. Closing 100% of the overseas military bases ain't to smart. How about cutting some entitlement benefits? You know. The Pyramid Schemes of Medicare and Social Security. Any system that lets you collect 3+X the amount you put in, is a system designed to fail. In this case, the youth of today won't see a penny unless there are changes to the benefits.
I wonder why the young people are not marching in the streets in protest?
wsoxman 8 months ago
I guess the new wars in Libya and Yemen are free, show the blobama budget???????????
gewe33523 8 months ago
How about you update that chart? A little further to the right is where things get really fun.
A lot of these democratic administrations had republican controlled congresses. I'd hate to let facts get in the way of your point though
AtibbsSPARTAN 9 months ago 2
@AtibbsSPARTAN make your own video - and put your spin on it!! BTW Cheney says "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Ralphdraw3 9 months ago
@Ralphdraw3
Good point, although I believe the Bush administration was one of the worst in history
AtibbsSPARTAN 9 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN Yes, I agree, Bush Administration over his 2nd term was very bad. Then again he had an out of control spending of a Democrat lead Congress.
Leave room in history for the 1 term Obama years where spending only leads to buying votes and talking about cutting, is just lies.
wsoxman 9 months ago 6
@AtibbsSPARTAN Republican controlled houses that prevented even better results, hate to let facts get in the way of your spin.
pistolpete1st 9 months ago
@pistolpete1st
I don't really like the republican party to begin with. Every time they have the opportunity to really reform spending they don't
AtibbsSPARTAN 8 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN Then don't give them fuel for their fire. Educate yourself on which canidate will do a job right the first time and don't let a two party system tell you who you can vote for.
pistolpete1st 8 months ago
@pistolpete1st
Damn right. I was really against this depiction of democrats. I didn't vote for republicans in '08 and I won't in '12 if the best they can come up with is palenty, gingrich or romney
AtibbsSPARTAN 8 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN So you are good with the status qua? Vote for the "D" no matter what they PROMISE YOU>
I bet you believe that the Democrats are for the poor guy. They have been in charge for years and what has it gotten some poor folks.........................nothing but welfare.
wsoxman 8 months ago
@wsoxman
I'm a libertarian...I have no idea what you're talking about
AtibbsSPARTAN 8 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN So if you are a Libertarian, why the hell would you support BIG GOVERNMENT with Democrat leadership? If you were truly a Libertarian you wouldn't vote for any of the bums. My vote goes to John Stossel. To bad he ain't running. But American don't care about well thought out management. They vote for the person with the most media coverage and biggest bullshit line.
wsoxman 8 months ago
@wsoxman
Not sure where or when I supported big government under a democrat banner although big government under the title of the Republican party is even worse. As long as people associate George W. with fiscal conservancy we are in big trouble
AtibbsSPARTAN 8 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN Obama and the Democrats have grown government by about 20% in the past 4 years.
Obamacare will require 16k additional IRS workers. Yes, the Rep and George W spent our money like idiots, but this Congress, under Obama is making Bush look like a cheapskate.
Americans are still waiting on that CHANGE the Dems promised. I say throw all the bums out and start with new people that have experience in the real world. Not fat cat lawyers which is 80% of Congress.
wsoxman 8 months ago
@wsoxman
They can start with Ron Paul
AtibbsSPARTAN 8 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN No, there's Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum. Anyone could do a better job than Obama & the previous Congress under Pelosi that couldn't even pass a budget in over 800 days, despite control over both Houses of Congress and the White House (& P.S.-that's their job!) If they had wanted to do anything "good", they had the power. They were too busy shoving Obamacare down our throats & spending money on roadside signs praising the Stimulus.
GetItRight4aChange 7 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN So every time the Democrats want to reform spending is NEVER. Their solution is more revenue/higher taxes and larger credit limit. The Tea Party wants both parties out of Washington.
wsoxman 8 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN That's why we have the TEA Party movement.
GetItRight4aChange 7 months ago
@surfsalem7 During Carter's 4 years, the deficits were small and the Congress was Democratic. When Reagan came in with his tax cuts and trickle down economics, deficits skyrocketed.
Ralphdraw3 9 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 now I know you're bullshitting. lol
Carter is the president, other then Obama now... that is remembered least for his economic soundness. Sorry man, but I'm not going to merely take your word for it when you are clearly bias.
surfsalem7 9 months ago
@surfsalem7 Bush43 had a Republican Congress for four years. Clinton had a Democratic Congress from 1993 to 1995. Under REagan, the Republicans controlled the Senate for 6 straight years.
Ralphdraw3 9 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 Bush jr is literally the only Republican president you could make that claim. And in case you forgot... which ya did... it doesn't matter if the president's party controls the Senate, without the House his agenda will not get passed the House. Kinda like now... Obama's socialist agenda is halted by the Republicans in the House because as you should know, he needs the House to pass his agenda, like he did for two years (which is why we are further in debt then all pres before him).
surfsalem7 9 months ago
@surfsalem7 Reagan got his tax cuts through. So Remind me again why Reagan and his Republican Senate didn't stop the spending and balance the budget. Trickle down - Supply side failed...
Oh that's right Cheney says "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Ralphdraw3 9 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 I wasn't born yet.. but if I know anything about Democrats, the Democrats in control of the House at the time did it for political reasons. At least back then they apparently listened to the voices of the American people. Can't say the same for the Democrats of today.
Oh, and I don't give a shit what Cheney says. lol
surfsalem7 9 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 --even Reagan's economic advisors now admit trickle down doesn't work.
And yet dumb-ass Ryan wants to try it once more.
'
DillonDee1 9 months ago
@Ralphdraw3 --
Republicans -- dont be pissing on my leg,,,and try to tell me it's just raining money
DillonDee1 9 months ago
Comment removed
rjr287 9 months ago
You're forgetting that Clinton's administration coincided with the .COM Boom leading into the 21st Century. You're little chart is completely misleading, because Congress is mainly in charge of the deficit.
rjr287 9 months ago
Cut the spending...who cares who got us here ..... cut SPENDING what is so damn hard about that. I get no money from the govt. Slash spending, what they did today by cutting 38 billion is a JOKE, start by cutting all programs by 20% across the board. If it is not cut then I say lets have a civil war and lets fight it out in the streets, the capitalists will take clean out the garbage in the cities, trust me.
xerakis 10 months ago
Congress passes spending bills that the President can veto. The president passes spending bills that congress can vote off. And despite this balance the republicans manage to skyrocket the fucking debt repeatedly. No one learns their lessons because democrats are morons who can hold a straight face under public scrutiny and the republicans are master liars and deceivers.
smarzotais 11 months ago
WHERE IS OBAMAS?
TheHabit00 11 months ago
they need to show our defecits under obama, its gone even higher
Lunartechno 11 months ago
Propaganda. The Congress passes spending bills and not the presidents.
Buying power has not had 2 years of consecutive growth for over 40 years now.
tberthel 1 year ago
@tberthel Presidents propose things - like tax cuts to the rich (Bush) and wars against countries that did not attack us (Bush wanting war against Iraq).
Presidents also have veto power.
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 -- yes. Presidents have veto power.
And only an idiot wouidn't acknowledge that Democrats have been better budget managers than Republicans.
DillonDee1 9 months ago
@tberthel Actually, it is the President, BY LAW, that has to submit the budget. Then Congress takes what the President submits to them and they go over it. Approving of some, disapproving of some. Which is why the contentious committee debates always break out. Usually over how much of the President's spending they will approve, or whether to cut something, or fund something else. Once they approve of what is known as the "President's Budget", it is then sent back for his signature.
PalemoonSun 11 months ago
@tberthel
I concur.
katey1dog 10 months ago
BARRY HAS SPENT MORE THAN ALL THE PRESIDENTS FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO REAGON COMBINED! FACT!
cody34429 1 year ago
@cody34429 If it is a fact, then you will have no trouble with this question.... can you show me that source?
PalemoonSun 11 months ago
@cody34429 THAT IS A FACT!
TheHabit00 11 months ago
Ummm, you cut your chart off that shows Obama spending more than Bush. Also, the house controls the purse, your graph should display who had the majority in the house. I won't argue that Republicans are to blame, but let's be fair. Obama has outspent even Bush, who spent more than all presidents combined, and now Obama wants to spend 1.2 trillion more than we take in (ie deficit spending), and the Republicans want to spend half a trillion more than we take in.
justbourlier 1 year ago
@justbourlier Ummm, I think it's called "the greatest recession since the Great Depression".
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
Reagan destroyed America.
normalais 1 year ago
@normalais Best... Post... EVER!!!
PalemoonSun 11 months ago
There is no certainty in the words of a leader, a prophet, nor even those of God, the certainty of all rests in their actions.
PeaceProfit 1 year ago
Fucking Republicans! Damn you Republicans, damn you to hell!!!!
Stingerbillion 1 year ago
By the way. Take a look at most major coporations and see how much they pay in taxes. The corporate tax rate is supposed to be about 35%.
These are just a few:
CMS Energy Utilities 0.0%
Chesapeake Energy 0.3%
Boeing 0.7%
Broadcom Semiconductors 1.1%
And then they bitch about not having enough loopholes if we pass a Flat Tax Bill.
They say they will accept paying less taxes but they still want the loopholes. The middle-class are totally getting screwed.
IngloriusBastard11 1 year ago 5
@IngloriusBastard11- HA! Don't forget Target, they paid 0% last year. Most of the biggest corps filter their revenue through S-Corporations accompanied by fraudulent write offs, let alone foreign revenue. Look it up on the IRS.gov site, you'll then see why (R)'s champion the term "small business"..it's merely nothing but them creating the illusion that they're referencing that folksy Mom and Pop store that's been in the family / neighborhood for years...Ridiculously FAR from the truth.
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
@IngloriusBastard11 Interesting - I am bumping this comment up>>>
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 the fair retail sales tax is better than a "flat tax". that's what canada has basically and they're a lot happier with their taxes than we are ours.
oldhacks 1 year ago
@IngloriusBastard11 so may i ask who you are going to vote for? I usually vote independent, im not trying to argue with you im just curious
tamu77095 4 months ago
@IngloriusBastard11 Where are you getting that information? Those are stats that are good to know
tamu77095 4 months ago
Reagan also cut programs that were assisting the mental health programs in the United States so that he could come off as some macho asshole and spend billions on defense. He did nothing more than create havoc, destitution and misery for the lower middle class and poor.
All the time Ronald Reagan was in the White House he kept looking for the boom man, the gaffer, the Director and his make-up artist because he thought he was acting in some kind of damn movie.
IngloriusBastard11 1 year ago 3
To pay for the war Bush cut poverty programs to pay for things. The poor has been our foundation. Look at us now. Reagan also busted a union starting a mess of low wages. Not good for the poor. "watch?v=L9zqDZkv9eA" People see now, not another Bush! Also people are seeing how greedy the Tea party is! "watch?v=aPFCJvdzvi8"
walmartramen 1 year ago 2
Confusion is a sign of intelligence ,certainty is stupidity in a mask .Rumors is of a war of ideas and pressures us to choose which side we're on while in doing so we loose all sense of rationality
I'm just me in Europe and it seems evident I'm just hearing the loudest voices .But there's a problem : Geography is not the only interpretation of (Distance)
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
reagan, bush, and bush II are responsible for over 2/3rd's of america's debt, including the 2009 budget proposal submitted by george bush II. who btw didn't include war expenditures.
it was ronald reagan who turned us from a lender nation to a debtor nation.
what doesn't get expressed enough is the republican agenda to waste the public treasure while in office, then when dems take over there's no money left and they scream social programs need to be cut. it's diabolical what they do.
tomitstube 1 year ago 2
Do you not know that the Republicans under Clinton were the ones that were pushing for a balanced budget so badly? The Republicans wanted it done in 7 years and Clinton wanted it done in 9 years... The goal was eventually changed to 7 by Clinton and they almost reached it in FY2000...
And Democrats were proposing bigger budgets than the Republicans under Reagan, who, by the way, wanted to cut much more spending than the Democrats and RINOs let him...
No excuses for Bush however...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 What happened to the Republicans in the Congress after Clinton, when they started spending like drunken sailors?
BTW Reagan NEVER submitted a balanced budget proposal to Congress - Reagan didn't even try... And I believe Reagan was proposing MORE spending on defense than the Congress wanted. I am told that the Republican controlled the Senate under Reagan.
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago 8
@Ralphdraw3 Once again, I do not defend the 2000-2008 Republicans spending, except the Bush tax cuts...
And Reagan did cut non-defense spending... It was the defense budget that blew up deficits, which he is legitimately to blame for...
But you repeatedly deny credit to the Republicans under Clinton... You should be praising them just like you praised Carter (who had ruined the economy to inflation and high taxes)... Hold them to your own standards instead of partisan double standards...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731
"Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act* that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich"
w w w. lafn. org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart. html
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP You still cannot deny that the Republicans wanted to balance it faster than the Democrats did...Give credit where it is due...
Second, why do all these people who criticized Republican deficits turn a blind eye to Obama? Notice Obama's deficits are not shown in the graph...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 If Republicans wanted to reduce the debt, why did they vote against the 1993 Debt Reduction Act? There are only a very small minority of Republicans such as Ron Paul who care about reducing debt. But it's obvious that the Republican leadership isn't concerned about debt reduction... because, if they were, the debt wouldn't have grown so much under Republican administrations.
As for Obama, he inherited the spent surplus, failing economy & TARP created by the Bush administration.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP There are plenty of reasons to oppose something... Maybe the 1993 Act had tax increases or something, I'm not sure, but the Democrats still were the ones that didn't want to cut as much as Republicans did...
As for Obama? He voted for every last dime of spending that he "inherited"... He is also INCREASING spending in many areas.. PAYGO saved less than 1% of the budget last year, his spending freeze only applies to 12% of the budget, and his debt reduction study saves like .0028%
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 You are a lying sack of shit. Obama did not vote to go to war in Iraq. He was one of a few that had the balls to say no to you cumdrunk republicans. And contrary to republicans belief when you bring truth to the situation, how much money did republicans run up our national debt. Try $11.2T worth. That was the price tag for two wars, medicare part D and tax breaks for the wealthy. Hell, hedge fund mangers pay less taxes than any of us. Quit talking shit and look at the facts.
teabaggersblow 1 year ago
@teabaggersblow Look at the facts?! Hedge fund managers pay less?! How bout the top 5% of the wealthiest Americans earn about 40% of the income in America, but pay about 60% of all the taxes... And Obama wasn't even in the senate in 2002 to "not vote to go to war"... And he also voted in FAVOR of every war funding request from the President!!! And I don't support Medicare Part D...
And I already said that I do not excuse the spending that when on from 2000 to 2008... Can you read?
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 I would start by charging a 2%-3% tax on all derivatives on the books and ones in the future.
teabaggersblow 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 Under Clinton, the Democratic Congress 1992-94, raised taxes to help balance the budget. Also, the Republicans wanted Clinton to go to war with Iraq in 1998. Clinton refused.
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 I know Clinton raised taxes... This is not knew information lol... He also cut capital gains taxes...
But I have an off topic question... Would you balance the budget right now if you could, and, if so, how... Since you are so critical of deficits, I want to know what you would do...
ps. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts and ending the war doesn't even come close to balancing it...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 1) Raise the cap on Social security withholding tax 2) means test S.S. 3) treat capital gains as regular income 4) raise the top marginal rate to 40% 5) reduce defense spending by 20% 6) end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq 7) close overseas military bases 8) raise the estate tax to 50% 9) increase the gas tax
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3
Not being critical here, but how does raising the cap on SS withholding tax help the deficit? Its already got a surplus large enough to pay all claims at 100% until 2037 and can pay 80% of all claims indefinitely after that. The issue is the government stole that surplus and Republicans are now saying they will not be paying back the money they borrowed from Social Security and that's why the program has to be cut.
Russlem 1 year ago
@Russlem Good point. Maybe they should take S.S. completely off budget and into the "lockbox" so the politicians can't raid the account for other kinds of spending.
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 Yes you are correct that wacko "Republicans spent like drunken sailors" 2000-07, BUT COME ON NOW, how does that crap grant a OK for The Dems to take our debt from $10t to $14t in 4 years?
Its like "Well they did it, why can't we?"
We need to stop the party line bickering and start fixing this crap NOW.
I'm still looking for how much waste and fraud has been cut under Obama. Just the same old rhetoric of a professional politician that is ALWAYS campaigning for President.
wsoxman 8 months ago
@wsoxman Well those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are expensive; and so are those tax cuts to the truly wealthy - they are very expensive. As is the Medicare Part D program that the Republican Congress passed and Bush signed.
Ralphdraw3 8 months ago
@voltrabbit7 The time to be afraid is when the DEMS and REPUBS agree.
Then Long-Expensive wars are started, Big Deficits occur and the American People are taken to the cleaners.
topthickproducer 1 year ago
Yup, the best thing about being a neo-con is that you can say the exact opposite of the truth and all your dumb followers will believe it: "I'm a fiscal conservative". Sure you are Ronnie.
tstruss912 1 year ago
You conveniently left out Obamas last two years!
willyswear 1 year ago
i believe this
cedarpose 1 year ago
The question of why isn't Obama on here is superficial, some may argue the graph is also. Bush undercut Obama when the budget was passed, and he knew it. There's plenty of reasons that dictate Federal spending, debts and deficits..allot of them are not in the President nor Congress's absolute control. Once one understands our ass backwards monetary system, you'll understand why Obama needed to spend to avoid a collapse. We live in a debt based society, without debt there would be no cash.
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
@beatsbytheory Without debt their would be no cash? So you must be thrilled by the deficits of Reagan and Bush, huh?
Obama has been picking and choosing which big corporations are worthy enough for him to give massive amounts of money, essentially awarding their failure and establishing the idea that even if you fail, the government will be there to bail you out. The companies that acted responsibly and ethically and avoided the crisis got no money.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1-Which corporations did Obama HIMSELF specifically choose to "award" money? Wtf? Of course the companies that acted responsibly and avoided failure got no money, that's a ridiculous statement.
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
@beatsbytheory Right. So, the message he sent was: Act irresponsibly, get money from the government. Don't worry too much about success, because if you fail, the government will always be there to bail you out! Act responsibly, you don't get any of the millions we gave to the other guys... sound fair, huh?
Obama and the Democrats chose to give bailout money to hundreds of companies. Wells Fargo, Chrysler, GM... all the companies that were struggling got rewarded. The successful ones, nothing.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1 Wtf are you talking about? TARP was signed by Bush, not Obama..he may have been in favor of it, but he didn't draft the language of it. The GM situation was a loan not necessarily a "bailout"...that money has to be paid back WITH INTEREST. You don't even make sense, corporations got / get their "rewards" from all the extensive tax cuts they've been receiving for the past decade and they've now just been renewed.
beatsbytheory 1 year ago 9
@beatsbytheory Oh gosh. Yes, those awful tax cuts. You can't tax a corporation, by the way.... ALL they do is pass the extra money they have to pay onto the CONSUMER! They raise the price of their goods/service... a tax on a company is essentially a tax on the consumers who do business with that company. So if you cut taxes on the company then you cut taxes for the consumer.
And Obama's budget doesn't cut taxes by the way, it raises them by $989 billion over the next 10 years.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@zeecee1 I'd like to see some statistics other than this simple post, because other than that this just seems like more corporatist bullshit. You mean the benevolent multinationals that raise prices, outsource American jobs for cheaper foreign labour in Dubai, and whose lobbying for deregulation has corrupted the electoral processes? It's a lose/lose for consumers as well who have less to spend due to a shrinking job sector, an neocon policies like yours exacerbate things further.
viletree 1 year ago
@beatsbytheory TARP - signed by Bush who sided with the Democrats, not the GOP - was followed by a number of other bailouts by the Obama Administration, a few other bank ones and of course the auto bailout. A healthy chunk of this money has yet to be paid back. What's worse, the Democrats sent the message that if you are big and powerful and you fail - count on the government to bail you out! This provides an incentive for companies to continue risky practices.
zeecee1 1 year ago
@beatsbytheory Well said, i completely agree. Plus, the automakers are paying back just like the wall street. Republicans don't like it that automakers flourished. They wanted them to fail so they can rub it on Obama.
Stingerbillion 1 year ago
@beatsbytheory Tax cuts? Lets talk about the 50+% of the citizens that pay NO INCOME TAX. NOthing. These people don't even do community services. There are just leaches on the taxpayers. "Spread The Wealth" as long as its someone else s wealth. Lets collect more tax dollars to be spent on waste and fraud programs.
Why would some rich person want to hand over more of their money to be wasted on a mis managed government?
wsoxman 9 months ago
@wsoxman due to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth
.
Someideasandstuff 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Someideasandstuff " due to economies of scale theory, capitalism will always lead to the concentration of wealth "
So lets try socialism or communist and see how everyone fairs? The Ultimate "Spread the wealth"
Try, hard work and some luck = a good life.
wsoxman 8 months ago
American citizens are still waiting for a 2011 Budget from our wonderful leaders.
And you liberals want more tax dollars?
wsoxman 9 months ago
In 28 years since 1981 (before President Obama) we had 20 years of Republican presidents who gave us 20 deficits. Reagan & Bush QUADRUPLED the debt before Clinton and Bush DOUBLED it again after Clinton.
Under Clinton, the only Democratic president the last 28 years before Obama, there were four surpluses and Clinton REDUCED the national debt by $600 billion.
JEEZ, the Republicans are pathetic liars.
goog2k 1 year ago
In the meantime, since 1979 middle class wages have remained stagnant while on average productivity increased 4% per year.
And worst of all, in 1979 the top 1% took 9% of GNP. Now the top 1% of Americans take 24.5% of GNP. So much for trickle down.
JEEZ, we must cut the richest 2% taxes again.
Duhh???
goog2k 1 year ago 2
1) Why isn't Obama included in the graph?
2) Congress holds the purse strings, not the Pres. I'd like to see graphs with three color codings: Blue for when D's have majorities in both houses, Red for when R's have majorities in both houses, and purple when the house and senate are divided. The Pres can veto spending bills, but this tends to cost them a lot of political capital.
freesk8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freesk8
"How lowering tax for the riches stimulates the economy using real historical occurrence as an example?"
Do you have the answer, yes or no?
allgoo19 1 year ago
i'd like to see the obama years factored in this graph...
elnegrobembon 1 year ago
The blue side still thinks they are SO fiscally responsible. To quote Obama. they can't drive!
ERICRIPPER1 1 year ago
Thank you for posting..!!
fleetingdays 1 year ago
What does this look like with a representation of the increases or decreases in prosperity?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez What do you mean by prosperity? We have been losing manufacturing jobs for two decades. Many of our major cities are dying. The median wage/salary has been stagnant. Individual debt in this country has sky-rocketed.
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago 4
@Ralphdraw3
I mean this just shows deficit and spending. I'd just like to see what it looks like when you also show growths or decreases in prosperity. I know during Clinton there was a massive increase in prosperity for example. It just might add a little depth to it.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
There is no way to pay back money plus interest when the principle was created from nothing to begin with.
The math is easy, don't let the A-holes make it look harder than it is.
The banks create the money from nothing. Then they "loan" it to the govt. The govt. then spends the counterfeit money. It is just that simple folks, lets not get tangled up in meaningless discussions about "theroetical" money. That is what got us into this situation to begin with.
dlucas90 1 year ago
danger0usknowledge 1 year ago
Gee, I love this, a pissing contest to see who can do the better job of destroy the country. As long as morons continue to elect Republicans or Democrats (excluding the two exceptions of Rand and Ron Paul the only two legislator willing to cut spending across the board) Government will continue to grow and the deficits will continue to grow with them. The country is doomed. Get ready to bend over and get the New World Order shoved up your rear end.
UtwoBed 1 year ago
I'm amazed whenever someone says Bush's financial plan was better than Obama's.
arthereld 1 year ago
Another interesting FACT is the comparison on WAGE GROWTH between the parties. Over several decades, under Democratic presidents, wages grew both FASTER and more EQUALLY than under Repub prez's. Under Repub prez's, wages grew LESS FAST and the RICH got RICHER FASTER while lower-income American's wages GREW SLOWEST.
Again, a Democratic prez was handed a huge mess and it'll take time to get out, but giving Repubs any more control in D.C. will b a disaster for the middle-class and the poor.
demmmmm1 1 year ago
The reason Republicans wants to make it worse for this nation is called Shock Treatment. The idea is that if the person goes through shock enough they become complient. Shock treatment is Milton Friedman's brainchild. His Noble Prize should be revoked because of his advocay of shock treatment. Some of the shock is Courts picking Bush Jr instead of the people, lied into wars, deficit doesn't matter, housing collapse, etc. shock after shock. Republicans are calling for a Corporate control of govt
666brainiac 1 year ago
It was the monetary policy in the 70's , not the party of the president that had debt lower then.
BarclayAvenue 1 year ago
@BarclayAvenue LOL - so government spending and tax cuts have NO EFFECT on the budget??
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3-Wtf is that dude talking about th 70's for?
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 LOL - so Monetary policy has NO EFFECT on borrowing ?
BarclayAvenue 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 -
govt spending worsens the budget in the short-term, but can help in the long-term
tax cuts mean the govt will receive less money for the budget than it otherwise would - but revenue will still usually be up the next yr as it almost always is because of increases in population & businesses
The best thing we can do now is increase the MAX TAX RATE to balance the budget.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
What hooey this is. If you have an upswing red curve and a downswing blue curve that follows it, and they are equal size (like regan & clinton's) then they have increased the debt by the same exact amount (only the repubs small increase came before its large increase, and the dems small increase came after its large increase) The bars stand for increases in debt! Not for levels of debt.
You forgot to show Obama after Bush. How do you think that measures up to Bush's spending.
BarclayAvenue 1 year ago
@BarclayAvenue You misunderstand the graph - almost all of the years portrayed here there was deficit spending - hence the national debt increases every year. The graph shows the DIRECTION of the deficit spending - It increases under Republican presidents (fact) and it decreased under Clinton.
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 TErm deficit spending was not much differnt under Clinton than Reagan's 2nd term. You can argue Clinton was obliged to have a first year horrible deficit because he had to maintain the idiocy of the previous fiscal year, but that is a total copout.I agree he reduced " the increase" over teh course of years.but he started out with a big INCREASE in spending over the previous (Reagan's!) year. you credit him for reducing his own increase, AS IF you are looking at a Spending graph!!
BarclayAvenue 1 year ago
@BarclayAvenue Then how do you explain the $5 trillion increase in national debt during Bush43's term??
Ralphdraw3 1 year ago
@Ralphdraw3 Yeh...I noticed you got no answer from the ECON Man. Honestly, the right is beyond laughter on most issues. So much for fiscal responsibility. The day before 911 Donald Rumsfeld got on TV and grudgingly announced on a bad Monday that the Pentagon lost over a trillion dollars. It was unaccounted for and the loss was rising....uhhhh??? Excuse me? It sure looks interesting. I mean did he know a much larger, darker horse was coming?
distressed7 1 year ago
@BarclayAvenue There are two equally crazy and pervasive ideas in American discourse right now, brought to us by the right wing television, newspaper, and radio networks:
1) Bush didn't catastrophically raise the deficit.
2) Obama's policies are different than Bush's policies.
Both of these are myths. Bush cut taxes for the rich and borrowed trillions, throwing it away on Iraq and lobbyists. Obama is continuing almost all of Bush's disastrous policies, even caving on the tax cuts.
Turtleproof 1 year ago
@Turtleproof Agreed. and (2) is also brought to us by Democrats who would for like us to beleive the party is making a difference. They have differences but are the same party basically.
Clinton, Bush, Obama : NAFTA (Clinton), WTO Trade over Democracy (All), CodexAlimentarius (All ), banks and derivative products : blatant deregulation (Clinton) or no action (Bush Obama)
BarclayAvenue 1 year ago
this is a great representation of funds spent by the parties, awesome vid !
bbryans21 1 year ago
This graphic should be part of every Democratic candidate's campaign. It should be adopted as the unofficial logo of the Democratic Party as long as the Republicans keep spouting their lies about 'fiscal responsibility' and the Democrats being the party of 'big government'.
As long as the low information voters fall for the Two Santas strategy of the GOP, they'll keep doing this crap until the U.S. economy collapses completely...
bushputz 1 year ago
Whats funny is you forgot to show Obama's first 2 years...they would have skyrocketed Bush's years.
But, I do understand, and Republicans are phonies just like the Democrats. They both suck -- saying one is better than the other is like pointing out the worst alcoholic at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. They're all drunks!
Buergs323 1 year ago
@Buergs323-1st, it's about not being so superficial. Understand that with the unemployment rate more people are spending the Govt's $ let alone the 2009 budget was passed and undercut by Bush. The only legislation that was spent on in 09 was the stimulus. The HC bill hasn't even been fully implemented to assess the speculative costs. Blame Wall St. and deregulation supporters for the current deficit.
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
@beatsbytheory
"Blame Wall St. and deregulation supporters for the current deficit."
Boy oh boy. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Buergs323 1 year ago
@Buergs323-Well that was a mindless rebuttal..Lol. Since you're not paying attention and ignored the context, I said DEFICIT- not "debt". We can balance the deficit all we want, it's impossible to rid us of the National Debt without barter (*cough* gold) as long as The Fed exists. Contrary to what you know or believe, if there was no debt there would be nearly no money circulating.
beatsbytheory 1 year ago
Nice job! Notice how we never see this on MSM news shows.
awreslr2 1 year ago
Amen.
AnotherNewDawn 1 year ago