Republicans launch coordinated attack over the deficit. Is anybody going to remember that almost all of the current $11 trillion debt was run up by Republican Presidents? See LINK:

Comments

• Here's 6 positroll points for telling the truth.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 15th, 2009

• 6 more.

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on October 16th, 2009

• BTW, It's way more than 50% Before Ronald Reagan took office, the national debt was at $2 trillion. Bush 43 left us touching $11 Trillion. That's a 450% increase.
  .
  Believe Democrats are the big spenders?. You must have dozed through every Repugnican administration since Nixon. Look at http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
  .
  Going back to Kennedy/Johnson Democratic days, we fought the Vietnam war while keeping the national debt curve flat.
  .
  The first true Repugnican, Nixon plus Ford together in 8 years doubled the National Debt.
  .
  Then came Democrat, Carter and the debt curve again began to flatten out.
  .
  Next was Repugnican Reagan and the national debt tripled in his 8 years. Bush the elder took over and ran it up even faster, from just under 3 trillion to 4.2 in 4 short years. If he'd won a second term, he would have doubled it too.
  .
  In Democrat Clinton's 8 years, the curve turned back down and again flattened out. And he left office with a surplus.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 16th, 2009

• Uber-Repugnican Bush 2 blew through the surplus, and left the debt at just under $11 trillion.
  
  Tax and Spend Democrats is a Repugnican LIE! The numbers tell the truth.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 16th, 2009

• Since when did Republicans ever CARE about the truth?

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on October 17th, 2009

• As it's been said, facts have a well-established liberal bias.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 17th, 2009

• Sorry, but I still think that _tax_ and spend is better than _borrow_ and spend.

  • Report
  

  by jcmil2 on November 12th, 2009

• Amen to that!

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 12th, 2009

Comments

• It's easy to fix. Just redefine all the previous Republicans as RINOs and purge them.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 12th, 2009

Comments

• I had one tell me that FDR caused the great depression. He must have been quite a leader, to cause something 4 years before he was even in office.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on October 16th, 2009

• Now you understand just how nefarious we Democrats are. We even have the power of Time Travel!

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on October 17th, 2009

Comments

• The spending spree he's been on was largely dictated by the ditch the economy was in. I don't think many Americans realize how dangerously close we came to a second Great Depression or what sort of economic pain and upheaval a real Depression brings. Think WWII and 60 million dead.
   
  But you are right about the problem. It will have to be addressed or it will bring the roof down on our heads. And it can't be addressed unless the public has the national will to swallow the bitter medicine needed. The problem isn't the politicians, it's the people.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 12th, 2009

• You and I will probably differ on how much he needed to spend, or was constitutionally authorized to spend, but it's water under the bridge now. The damage has already been done. You are right that the American people are a problem. They equally oppose tax increases and spending cuts. You can't have it both ways. To get the budget under control, the American people will have to accept less government and fewer entitlements. They will have to assume more responsibility for themselves. Unfortunately the American people aren't very good at accepting pain.
  
  I would also point out that presidents tend to unfairly get the sole blame for deficit spending when, in fact, Congress is just as guilty. Presidents of both parties have engaged in deficit spending with a Congress controlled partially, or wholly, by the opposite party. No democrat or republican has room to talk about the other.

  • Report
  

  by jubilee on November 12th, 2009

• Agreed on the attitude of the public. I must disagree on the fix. Slashing spending and entitlements would certainly work, but it is NOT the only alternative, or even the best. Raising taxes will work as well if it's done in moderation, targeted at the wealthy, and done after the economy begins to recover. After WWII, the debt was 120% of Gross Domestic Product. Right now, it's just 41%. We paid that crushing debt down with taxes as high as 90% on top brackets. Top bracket now pays 35%. It's definitely possible to set taxes too high and stifle the economy, thereby driving actual revenue down. It's equally possible to do the same thing by setting it too low. And when you slash taxes as the only remedy, you always decrease investment and watch the infrastructure further crumble.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 13th, 2009

• Here's something about who ran up the debt
   
  Believe Democrats are the big spenders?. You must have dozed through every Republican administration since Nixon. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg
   .
  Going back to Kennedy/Johnson Democratic days, we fought the Vietnam war while keeping the national debt curve flat.
   .
  The first new Republican, Nixon plus Ford together in 8 years doubled the National Debt.
   .
  Then came Democrat, Carter and the debt curve again began to flatten out.
   
  Next was Republican Reagan and the national debt tripled in his 8 years. Bush the elder took over and ran it up from just under 3 trillion to 4.2 in 4 short years. If he'd won a second term, he would have doubled it too.
   
  In Democrat Clinton's 8 years, the curve turned back down and again flattened out. Clinton left office with the largest surplus in US history.
   
  Uber-Republican Bush2 blew through the surplus, and left the debt at just under $11T.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 13th, 2009

• Your partisanship is showing. The President shares blame with Congress for overspending. Budgets originate in the House, which the Democrats controlled under Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush. They had a chance to vote against deficit spending, but instead chose to go along with it. Both parties share the blame.

  • Report
  

  by jubilee on November 19th, 2009

• Whoever gives either side a pass in the above list is showing their partisanship. But Presidents submit a proposed budget to Congress. Let's at least agree on the things that are ironclad fact.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 19th, 2009

• The great thing about not being a supporter of either party is not having to defend either side's shenanigans.

  • Report
  

  by jubilee on November 21st, 2009

• :) I'd do it myself, except I want to be able to vote in my state's primaries.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 22nd, 2009

• I gave up on that many years ago. I'm slightly more sympathetic to the GOP, but they don't have anyone worth voting for anymore either. Until America removes both parties from power, the country will not change for the better. In fact, I fully believe they will lead us to financial collapse. Read George Washington's farewell address to the nation. His thoughts on the dangers of political parties has never been more relevant than it is now.

  • Report
  

  by jubilee on November 23rd, 2009

• I know what Washington had to say about parties. But in a free society, I don't see any good way of eliminating them. We probably have to find ways to improve the outcome of partisan politics.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 23rd, 2009

• We don't necessarily need to eliminate them. However, we do need to lessen their power. We need serious campaign finance reform that severely limits the amount of money they can raise/spend. We also need to stop identifying with a party as Americans. Most people vote based on a D or an R next to a candidates name. So much so that most Americans do no research on any candidate and will not even consider an independant or third party choice. Americans are sheep who are led where the 2 parties want them to go. It's unbelievably frustrating for the few of us who vote for real change.

  • Report
  

  by jubilee on November 24th, 2009

• Public financing of elections would would work if it were not for the pesky 1st Amendment. The 527s would just go crazy running interest adds with a sea of corporate and union money to spend. The Supreme Court has routinely struck down even modest attempts at campaign finance reform as interference in free speech. THey have held that corporations giving money to political causes that affect their profits is speech.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 24th, 2009

• "THey have held that corporations giving money to political causes that affect their profits is speech."
  
  Let the 527's and special interests run whatever ads they like. I agree that is protected speech. However, we need to severely limit what a candidate or party can raise. Our politicians are beholden to those who give them the millions they need to win. If you limit that influence in a meaningful way, we might see more honest government. I don't necessarily equate fundraising to speech.

  • Report
  

  by jubilee on November 25th, 2009

• I'm all for public financing of election campaigns. I do suspect that the 527s would find a way to exert influence, though. They are not going to raise and spend millions getting someone elected without some certainty they will get something from their investment.

  • Report
  

  by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 25th, 2009

Comments