Thats great… except the figures aren’t accurate. In 2000, the debt was $5.6T – we did not have a $5.6T surplus.
The only surplus we ever had were a few years of budget surpluses under Clinton, but they were essentially a drop in the bucket when put against the actual debt. So whoever forwards this type of crap is guilty of intellectual dishonesty which makes them just as bad as those who conveniently ignore Bush’s spending habits in the first place.
Costner – so – you find it appropriate to characterize a posiitve cash flow (reduction of the debt) as menaiungless – because it’s “a drop in the “? And just how do you characterize the Repub. proposed plans of late that only “reduced the deficit” (not pay down ANY of the debt – but only slow it’s growth). Is it “at least they’re doing something”? (As in making the hole in the bucket smaller – vs. actually plugging it? This is what is SSOOO disingenuous about the Repubs. They see growing the debt more slowly as VASTLY SUPERIOR to reversing the flow – AT ALL, even a little bit. WHY is that Costy? Can you say “partisan blinders”?
I never said surpluses were meaningless, but comparing a yearly budget surplus against the overall debt is like using a super soaker to put out a house fire.
You won’t find me defending the Bush spending spree nor will you find me defending the economic policies of the GOP, so I have no idea where you get your “partisan blinders” nonsense. This isn’t about Democrat or Republican, it is about telling the truth, and whoever created the graphic above is blatantly dishonest.
The fact is we never had a $5.6T surplus. Ever. When Bush took over the debt was $5.6T which is the exact opposite of what was written on that image. Bush and his policies can be held accountable for racking that debt up to over $10T (and one could argue they are responsible for a large portion of the debt in the years since) but it isn’t fair to blame Bush for something that isn’t even true.
Partisan blinders? I think not.
I’ll be the first to bash Bush, but I agree – let’s at least get the facts straight. You don’t need hyperbole to make Bush’s economic policies look bad.
Costner, thanks for the clarification, even though I am still confused as fuck.
“You don’t need hyperbole to make Bush’s economic policies look bad.”
No kidding, huh?
Cost – I bleieve that what that 5.6T surplus is referring to is what the state of the treaury WOULD BE if it weren’t for Bush’s Tax Cuts + off-the-budget war spending – not what it once WAS.
I do know one thing. The country is broke.
rufus… that is a bit of a stretch and would require someone to predict the future. However even if you removed the Bush tax cuts and if we never went to Iraq we still would be nowhere near having a 5.6T surplus. It would be a few Trillion no doubt, but not enough to turn a $5.6T debt into a $5.6T surplus during Bush’s tenure.
Just admit it… the graphic is factually incorrect and whoever created it is being dishonest because they (rightfully) assume people will just accept it at face value without bothering to check the facts. You can spin it any way you want, but it seems some people just hate Bush so bad they are willing to say or believe just about anything.
I mean honestly… do we really need to make up facts in order to have reasons to dislike the man? There are a lot of real reasons to not like him – no need to invent even more. Reality is justification enough – he ruined our economy, drove a wedge between the lower and upper classes, started wars for no legitimate reason, stomped all over the Constituation in the name of being a “PATRIOT”, handed out no-bid government contracts to friends…. need I go on?
Why make up stories about him when history has already shown him to be one of the worst Presidents in history?
l3wis – you’re exactly right, and since we have a party that has pledged themselves to a lobbyist and therefore cannot consider any changes to tax code one one side, and a party who isn’t really serious about cutting spending unless it is on things they don’t care about… I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
I wonder if we could change the Constitution and recruit Clinton to run again. He was the last good President we had.
I’m confused, which party is which? They both have sold their souls to lobbyists and corporations years ago.
Lewis – the country as a whole is FAR fom broke. It’s just that the way the “conservatives” have structured cash flow over the past 30 years has taken the government too far into debt to the bankers/investment class. The $$$ is still here – it’s just all concentrated in too few hands.
Think of it like we’re all sitting at a poker table. There are 10 people in the game. 8 of us have a few chips, while 2 have piles of chips (and one of them owes what they have to the other). Now, who’s gonna “win” the next hand? Predictable – isn’t it? Doesn’t even matter what cards are dealt – does it?
The Bush family has occupied the White House for 5.38% of the entire history of the American Presidency.
Under their leadership, America has acquired 45% of its total national debt which goes back to the first George W. (Washington.)
Your Honor, I rest my case.
ruf – I get the OWS argument, but they need to get tougher. It’s time to show some teeth.
How do you buy the teeth? Oh – that’s right – you gotta have chips. What happens in a “free market” CAPITALIST economy when someone else offers more chips for the teeth than you have? You don’t get the teeth. Biggest pile wins.
As long as the same game is played – using the standard rules – the no chips group WILL loose. Only solution is – stop the game. Turn the table upside down, take the legs off, break the chairs, smash the chips, burn the rules.
1776, 1789, 1810, 1905.
Examples.
I agree Ruf, I bite my tongue a lot when it comes to how OWS is ‘protesting’ this. While I support them, they are missing the fight. You have to fight fire with fire and you have to fight dirty.
The accumulated federal government was essentially caused by Saint Ronnie and Bush I. Clinton sneaked in budget surpluses to the cries of disaster from Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. The projected budget surpluses had the Bush II tax cuts not been put into place would have eliminated all Federal Government debt by 2010. Goldman Sachs and Wall St. was fought for debt so they could handle the bonds. Look where are today because of the policy pushed.
Thats great… except the figures aren’t accurate. In 2000, the debt was $5.6T – we did not have a $5.6T surplus.
The only surplus we ever had were a few years of budget surpluses under Clinton, but they were essentially a drop in the bucket when put against the actual debt. So whoever forwards this type of crap is guilty of intellectual dishonesty which makes them just as bad as those who conveniently ignore Bush’s spending habits in the first place.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Costner – so – you find it appropriate to characterize a posiitve cash flow (reduction of the debt) as menaiungless – because it’s “a drop in the “? And just how do you characterize the Repub. proposed plans of late that only “reduced the deficit” (not pay down ANY of the debt – but only slow it’s growth). Is it “at least they’re doing something”? (As in making the hole in the bucket smaller – vs. actually plugging it? This is what is SSOOO disingenuous about the Repubs. They see growing the debt more slowly as VASTLY SUPERIOR to reversing the flow – AT ALL, even a little bit. WHY is that Costy? Can you say “partisan blinders”?
I never said surpluses were meaningless, but comparing a yearly budget surplus against the overall debt is like using a super soaker to put out a house fire.
You won’t find me defending the Bush spending spree nor will you find me defending the economic policies of the GOP, so I have no idea where you get your “partisan blinders” nonsense. This isn’t about Democrat or Republican, it is about telling the truth, and whoever created the graphic above is blatantly dishonest.
The fact is we never had a $5.6T surplus. Ever. When Bush took over the debt was $5.6T which is the exact opposite of what was written on that image. Bush and his policies can be held accountable for racking that debt up to over $10T (and one could argue they are responsible for a large portion of the debt in the years since) but it isn’t fair to blame Bush for something that isn’t even true.
Partisan blinders? I think not.
I’ll be the first to bash Bush, but I agree – let’s at least get the facts straight. You don’t need hyperbole to make Bush’s economic policies look bad.
Costner, thanks for the clarification, even though I am still confused as fuck.
“You don’t need hyperbole to make Bush’s economic policies look bad.”
No kidding, huh?
Cost – I bleieve that what that 5.6T surplus is referring to is what the state of the treaury WOULD BE if it weren’t for Bush’s Tax Cuts + off-the-budget war spending – not what it once WAS.
I do know one thing. The country is broke.
rufus… that is a bit of a stretch and would require someone to predict the future. However even if you removed the Bush tax cuts and if we never went to Iraq we still would be nowhere near having a 5.6T surplus. It would be a few Trillion no doubt, but not enough to turn a $5.6T debt into a $5.6T surplus during Bush’s tenure.
Just admit it… the graphic is factually incorrect and whoever created it is being dishonest because they (rightfully) assume people will just accept it at face value without bothering to check the facts. You can spin it any way you want, but it seems some people just hate Bush so bad they are willing to say or believe just about anything.
I mean honestly… do we really need to make up facts in order to have reasons to dislike the man? There are a lot of real reasons to not like him – no need to invent even more. Reality is justification enough – he ruined our economy, drove a wedge between the lower and upper classes, started wars for no legitimate reason, stomped all over the Constituation in the name of being a “PATRIOT”, handed out no-bid government contracts to friends…. need I go on?
Why make up stories about him when history has already shown him to be one of the worst Presidents in history?
l3wis – you’re exactly right, and since we have a party that has pledged themselves to a lobbyist and therefore cannot consider any changes to tax code one one side, and a party who isn’t really serious about cutting spending unless it is on things they don’t care about… I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
I wonder if we could change the Constitution and recruit Clinton to run again. He was the last good President we had.
I’m confused, which party is which? They both have sold their souls to lobbyists and corporations years ago.
Lewis – the country as a whole is FAR fom broke. It’s just that the way the “conservatives” have structured cash flow over the past 30 years has taken the government too far into debt to the bankers/investment class. The $$$ is still here – it’s just all concentrated in too few hands.
Think of it like we’re all sitting at a poker table. There are 10 people in the game. 8 of us have a few chips, while 2 have piles of chips (and one of them owes what they have to the other). Now, who’s gonna “win” the next hand? Predictable – isn’t it? Doesn’t even matter what cards are dealt – does it?
The Bush family has occupied the White House for 5.38% of the entire history of the American Presidency.
Under their leadership, America has acquired 45% of its total national debt which goes back to the first George W. (Washington.)
Your Honor, I rest my case.
ruf – I get the OWS argument, but they need to get tougher. It’s time to show some teeth.
How do you buy the teeth? Oh – that’s right – you gotta have chips. What happens in a “free market” CAPITALIST economy when someone else offers more chips for the teeth than you have? You don’t get the teeth. Biggest pile wins.
As long as the same game is played – using the standard rules – the no chips group WILL loose. Only solution is – stop the game. Turn the table upside down, take the legs off, break the chairs, smash the chips, burn the rules.
1776, 1789, 1810, 1905.
Examples.
I agree Ruf, I bite my tongue a lot when it comes to how OWS is ‘protesting’ this. While I support them, they are missing the fight. You have to fight fire with fire and you have to fight dirty.
The accumulated federal government was essentially caused by Saint Ronnie and Bush I. Clinton sneaked in budget surpluses to the cries of disaster from Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. The projected budget surpluses had the Bush II tax cuts not been put into place would have eliminated all Federal Government debt by 2010. Goldman Sachs and Wall St. was fought for debt so they could handle the bonds. Look where are today because of the policy pushed.