The GOP is responsible for most of the national debt

[Emily_Haines]

The national debt was about 1 trillion when Reagan took office.

In Reagan's 8 years he added 1.70 trillion to the debt
In Bush Senior's 4 years he added 1.40 trillion to the debt
In Clinton's 8 years he added 1.63 trillion to the debt
In Bush Junior's 8 year's he added 4.36 trillion to the debt




The last time I got a refund check was when Clinton was president

Tea Bagger's bitch and cry about the spending but it is they are the ones responsible for most of the debt.

Yeah sure I believe things will change with Tea Bagger's running the show. The only changes we will get is stripping of our freedoms as these religions nut jobs think they have the right to tell us what to do. Lot's of spending on the military and police. Our ability to travel freely will come to an end as they hate all non whites and want to attack any country that does not bow to our every wish.

[itchypickle]

Oh Em....did you really go there? Here let me bring you down a notch with your OWN point. In your research, you point out that in EIGHT years under Bush he added 4.35 Trillion. Okay, are you ready for this...hold on now...listen carefully....the last TWO years of his term was under a Democratic Congress for one...and if that's not enough for you...Obama has the same Congress and has only been in office 18 months...and he is already at the 2 Trillion mark!!!!!! So, by YOUR own standards....Obama will have matched W's debt additions by the endd of his first term....remember Bush had EIGHT years. Really good way to make yourself look like the forum's adopted window licker!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...76-503544.html There is a link from March of this year from CBS of all sources....and this doesn't even include the corrections currently being made by the CBO for the Health Care bill...much less the 142 Billion trying to get added for more unemployment...and oh yeah the 132+ Billion being asked for of teachers unions.

[andywend]

Emily, I realize your intelligence level is slightly below that of a carrot but one would think even you would understand that the president of the United States is NOT the one who has the final say on where and how much money is spent in this country.

That decision and responsibility rests in the hands of our congress.

When doing the accurate and relevant comparison of WHICH PARTY CONTROLS CONGRESS, we get the real story that you are so obviously trying to hide which is the democrats are the ones who are responsible for our country's out of-control debt.

Dating back 30 years and starting with the Reagan Administration, the DEMOCRATS had full control of congress from 1980-1994 and our country's debt skyrocketed. The voters became so outraged with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S long-term consistent WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING they threw them out of power.

As soon as the republicans took over congress in 1994, our country's wasteful government spending came to a screeching halt and it was the republican congress and NOT Bill Clinton who was responsible for the huge deficit reductions and the Clinton administration ended in a government surplus.

The 6 year period between 2001 and 2006 is where the democrats can argue about reckless republican party spending and they would be right. Millions of fiscal conservatives (along with liberal democrats) bashed the republican congress for the increase in deficit and the voters made the correct decision to give congressional power back to the democrats.

Unfortunately, the new 2006 democratic controlled congress put the republicans to shame and in 2008 our country's deficit skyrocketed and the graph above really tells the story.

Of course, Emily's graph conveniently ends in 2008 when the Obama administration begins with a democratic controlled congress and the deficit accumulated in 18 short months under Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is higher than the preceeding 6 years when the republicans had control from 2001-2006.

Any "sane" human being can see that its the democratic party that is mainly responsible for our country's huge deficits. Unfortunately, there aren't too many "sane" people within the democratic party and the voters are going to PUNISH these liberal left-wing idiots in November for all the damage they have caused our country in such a short period of time.

[golfrulz]

ya and how about that war in iraq. now that was a great fricken idea. one fukin trillion dollars. lives lost through the lies of the chimp and darth vader. the repuke party. the neocons. the chickenhawks. the tea party. omfg what a bunch of sick bastards.

[Emily_Haines]

LOL at these republican backers. Hit over the head with facts and they call you stupid and shift the blame on spending to congress. Hello!!! You do realize the president has veto power.

[golfrulz]

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

[Andy117]

I think this just shows that when it comes down to it neither party is all that fiscally responsible when they are in control.

[itchypickle]

Em...so then...you're saying Obama should veto his own agenda?? we are agreed then . The guy is on track to quadruple the previous administration.

golf...yes the Iraq war was misguided...and you said the Tea Party spent money?? please show us a Tea Party member who voted for any spending thus far...please..we wait with bated breath. Oh wait...there ARE none...it is obvious that on ideology left and right cannot meet on a solution...but reality and real world facts..regardless of ideology....are simply that..undeniable facts. YES Bush spent more than those who supported him wanted...hence his approval numbers when he left (fact)...Obama is now spending MORE...so yet again...FACT. Again IDEOLOGY IS LIKE PHILOSOPHY....no right or wrong answer in the end....but REALITY is hard evidence...and when it comes to government overreach...and spending amounts....the left loses this topic....end of story. The left's only plausible defense at best is that the other guy did it and was wrong, so we will now do it and somehow it's NOT wrong

[itchypickle]

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

pointless debate here..every side has these....stop deflecting for once...just admit you've lost the fiscal argument. sucks doesn't it

[golfrulz]

such anger. typical repuke response. so sad.

[itchypickle]

such anger. typical repuke response. so sad.

Sad? It's a 5th grade question..and you cannot or will not answer it! THAT is sad. Calm down for one second....forget it as a political beef and look at the numbers..again...calm down okay...I know it's hard.


Joe spends $800 over 8 years (this is $100 per year) Bob spends $400 in 2 years ($200 per year)
** Bob also plans to continue this rate or more

8 Years = $800 4 Years = $800 (1/2 time of Joe)


Are you smarter than a 5th grader?? Who has spent more money, JOE or BOB?




See how easy that is to show the truth??

[The Madcap]

I'm confused.

I understand where the Pickle and Andy sit in this discussion, I'm still trying to figure out what Golf and Emily believe. Are you guys saying that you're upset we have such a large debt? Or just upset that the Republicans in power have added to the debt in recent years?

Because either way, if deficit spending sends you into a bitter frenzy, then you've got more in common with the Tea Party than you do the Democrats.

Have you not seen that the Tea Pary candidates have been running AGAINST established Republicans? And not just that, but Republican INCUMBENTS?

And just so you know, there are actually a lot of influential people of color that defend and support the Tea Party movement. But don't take it from me. Read it for yourselves....

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2010/04/22/tea_party_why_the_left_doesnt_get_it

http://townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2010/05/22/hypocrisy_in_the_liberal_establishment

http://biggovernment.com/kenandken/2010/03/26/demonizing-everyday-americans/

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/05/05/black_americans_and_liberty

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/07/13/signs_of_the_times

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/07/14/the_national_association_for_the_advancement_of_coddled_people

[Sunde91]

Party politics is for losers and sheep.

[itchypickle]

Party politics is for losers and sheep.

[lyon804]

Oh Em....did you really go there? Here let me bring you down a notch with your OWN point. In your research, you point out that in EIGHT years under Bush he added 4.35 Trillion. Okay, are you ready for this...hold on now...listen carefully....the last TWO years of his term was under a Democratic Congress for one...and if that's not enough for you...Obama has the same Congress and has only been in office 18 months...and he is already at the 2 Trillion mark!!!!!! So, by YOUR own standards....Obama will have matched W's debt additions by the endd of his first term....remember Bush had EIGHT years. Really good way to make yourself look like the forum's adopted window licker!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...76-503544.html There is a link from March of this year from CBS of all sources....and this doesn't even include the corrections currently being made by the CBO for the Health Care bill...much less the 142 Billion trying to get added for more unemployment...and oh yeah the 132+ Billion being asked for of teachers unions.

Very nice work IP.. I applaud your work and respect your knowledge. like the other post as well.

[lyon804]

Emily, I realize your intelligence level is slightly below that of a carrot but one would think even you would understand that the president of the United States is NOT the one who has the final say on where and how much money is spent in this country.

That decision and responsibility rests in the hands of our congress.

When doing the accurate and relevant comparison of WHICH PARTY CONTROLS CONGRESS, we get the real story that you are so obviously trying to hide which is the democrats are the ones who are responsible for our country's out of-control debt.

Dating back 30 years and starting with the Reagan Administration, the DEMOCRATS had full control of congress from 1980-1994 and our country's debt skyrocketed. The voters became so outraged with the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S long-term consistent WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING they threw them out of power.

As soon as the republicans took over congress in 1994, our country's wasteful government spending came to a screeching halt and it was the republican congress and NOT Bill Clinton who was responsible for the huge deficit reductions and the Clinton administration ended in a government surplus.

The 6 year period between 2001 and 2006 is where the democrats can argue about reckless republican party spending and they would be right. Millions of fiscal conservatives (along with liberal democrats) bashed the republican congress for the increase in deficit and the voters made the correct decision to give congressional power back to the democrats.

Unfortunately, the new 2006 democratic controlled congress put the republicans to shame and in 2008 our country's deficit skyrocketed and the graph above really tells the story.

Of course, Emily's graph conveniently ends in 2008 when the Obama administration begins with a democratic controlled congress and the deficit accumulated in 18 short months under Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is higher than the preceeding 6 years when the republicans had control from 2001-2006.

Any "sane" human being can see that its the democratic party that is mainly responsible for our country's huge deficits. Unfortunately, there aren't too many "sane" people within the democratic party and the voters are going to PUNISH these liberal left-wing idiots in November for all the damage they have caused our country in such a short period of time.

Very good Andy. Once I seen you and IP already tackled this subject I was lost for words. I appreciate your continual effort of educating our liberal nit wit buddies.

[itchypickle]

Lyon, funniest part of it is...we never seem to get an answer....only angry responses. Go figure right? The last several threads here have ended either myself, Dwight, or Andy, etc asking a simple question to the sniping based in facts that we link to the page...and poof...they just hop to another topic in another thread.
Honestly, it's just a fun way to eat up time between orbits on PokerStars...not like we have to use a huge amount of brain power to bring light to the idiocy of some of the rants they throw out.

[lyon804]

Lyon, funniest part of it is...we never seem to get an answer....only angry responses. Go figure right? The last several threads here have ended either myself, Dwight, or Andy, etc asking a simple question to the sniping based in facts that we link to the page...and poof...they just hop to another topic in another thread.
Honestly, it's just a fun way to eat up time between orbits on PokerStars...not like we have to use a huge amount of brain power to bring light to the idiocy of some of the rants they throw out.

I have noticed that. I saw you told one of our libby buddies recently that the conv. was over when logic and brains had to be used with them.. I don't remember quite what you said but it made me laugh. We are fighting a losing battle here but it is still entertaining and we get to say what we think that might rile somebody up or maybe, just maybe change the way they think. Nevertheless, rather there is positive impact at all it is still nice to come to this forum and read what you,Dwight, and Andy have to say... I think all of our values are about as close to as identical as strangers get.

[BigdaddyQH]

So the Democrats, specifically the Liberals in here, endorse Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other big spenders, yet they cry about the defecit. Just who do you think is spending all of this money? George Bush? Sorry Liberals. He has been out of office for a year and a half now. You have no one to blame but Obama and the Liberal morons in Congress. The question is this. We know that you are going down in November, and you LIberals in here will become more and more defensive, but do you want to see a decrease in the defecit or not? It is a yes or no answer. Even people with a very limited amount of itelligence, like Emily can answer a yes or no question. So forget who is in power. Answer this simple question. Do you want to see a decrease in the defecit? Once we get your answer to that question, we can move on to the next one.

[itchypickle]

So the Democrats, specifically the Liberals in here, endorse Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other big spenders, yet they cry about the defecit. Just who do you think is spending all of this money? George Bush? Sorry Liberals. He has been out of office for a year and a half now. You have no one to blame but Obama and the Liberal morons in Congress. The question is this. We know that you are going down in November, and you LIberals in here will become more and more defensive, but do you want to see a decrease in the defecit or not? It is a yes or no answer. Even people with a very limited amount of itelligence, like Emily can answer a yes or no question. So forget who is in power. Answer this simple question. Do you want to see a decrease in the defecit? Once we get your answer to that question, we can move on to the next one.

I've been waiting for the yes/no response for days...knowing damn well Haines has seen us all ask repeatedly...she's cowering under a table somewhere....waiting us out...then she'll pop up with yet another rant on something else...avoiding reality yet again.

[andywend]

There are 2 distinct kinds of liberal democrats - Those like EmilyHaines, Golfrulz and Nasaki who are absolute nutcases and those like Hotdiggity that have at least some common sense.

Trying to have a rational conversation with the former is pointless so I just prefer to engineer my posts in a manner that will irritate them in the greatest way possible. Emily, golfrulz, Nasaki, etc, are people that have FAILED MISERABLY in every single thing they have ever set out to do and its easy to understand why. Instead of realizing all of their shortcomings and trying to improve on them, they blame all of their problems on others and will spend their entire lives wallowing in misery. Its really quite pathetic.

Its a waste of time trying to have a reasonable conversation with them so don't even try. We need to focus all our efforts trying to convince reasonable "sane" democrats that their political beliefs are flawed.

I think this just shows that when it comes down to it neither party is all that fiscally responsible when they are in control.

Andy117 is another example of someone who leans to the left but has lots of common sense. Andy, I always thought that, if given full control, the republicans would show the world what fiscal discipline really is and they had 6 full years and failed miserably. It was really quite disappointing.

The problem we all face is a lack of any reasonable alternative as the democrats are far, far worse in every area that matters, at least to me.

[Andy117]

So maybe we'll all be better off if the Republicans get Congress and a Dem stays in the white house, seemed to work well last time around.

[andywend]

Andy117, a republican controlled congress and a democratic president is the PERFECT scenario for the well being of our country. It worked well during the Clinton administration and will bring our country out of the mess we're in if given enough time.

I would give my full support to new legislation that says one party can NEVER have full control of our country ever again and its very easy to accomplish it. All you have to do is give the minority party more weight when it comes to their congressional voting.

Lets say its determined that our country runs best when the president has to work with a congress that is controlled by the opposite party that has 60% power (i.e. Obama is president so the republicans are given 60% power in both the house and senate).

This is accomplished as follows:
Democrats now control 59 senate seats out of 100 and also control 255 house seats to the republicans 178. In order to give the republicans 60% power due to a democrat controlling the White House, the congressional republicans would have increased weighting in their voting power.

In the senate, the 41 republicans would be given the voting power of 88 1/2 (each republican vote would be worth 2.15 democratic votes in the senate). This would give the republicans 60% voting power in the senate even though they only occupy 41% of the seats. For the house, the 178 republicans would be given the voting power of 382 1/2 (each republican vote would be worth the same 2.15 democrat votes in the house).

It is coincidental that the democrats have exactly 59% control in both the house and the senate at the present time.

These figures would be re-calculated every 2 years after the results of each election are known.

Under this type of plan, voting would take place exactly as normal but would ensure that the party that controls the White House would automatically have only 40% control of the senate.

Imagine a never-ending Clinton administration which is something both republicans and democrats should support.

[ericc]

The national debt was about 1 trillion when Reagan took office. In Reagan's 8 years he added 1.70 trillion to the debt In Bush Senior's 4 years he added 1.40 trillion to the debt In Clinton's 8 years he added 1.63 trillion to the debt In Bush Junior's 8 year's he added 4.36 trillion to the debt The last time I got a refund check was when Clinton was president Tea Bagger's bitch and cry about the spending but it is they are the ones responsible for most of the debt. Yeah sure I believe things will change with Tea Bagger's running the show. The only changes we will get is stripping of our freedoms as these religions nut jobs think they have the right to tell us what to do. Lot's of spending on the military and police. Our ability to travel freely will come to an end as they hate all non whites and want to attack any country that does not bow to our every wish.

Nailed it

[andywend]

Ericc,

Presidents can't spend money without full authorization from congress. If you don't understand this very simple concept, then there is no hope for you and you should NOT be allowed to participate in the voting process.

[DwightShrute]

Nailed it

no person that knows the tiniest bit about politics believes that Ericc. Emily has proven she knows nothing and reminds us all day in a day out. Way to hitch your trailer to the Naive Mobile and prepare for a long boring dumb ride to Loserville

[ericc]

Ericc, Presidents can't spend money without full authorization from congress. If you don't understand this very simple concept, then there is no hope for you and you should NOT be allowed to participate in the voting process.

okay

[thechaoz]

Hook it up with the points Emily. You are such a lovely poster imo

[muldoon]

I think this just shows that when it comes down to it neither party is all that fiscally responsible when they are in control.

Right now it's the republicans upset about deficits. Previously it was the dems. The truth is, who gets elected (or re-elected) on a platform of cuts?

Military cuts? Soft on D
Educational cuts? Kiss the union vote buh-bye.
Social programs - obvious.
Stop tax breaks for churches....adios to the bible folks.

There's a reason elections keep going in cycles.

[Hotdiggity11]

Right now it's the republicans upset about deficits. Previously it was the dems. The truth is, who gets elected (or re-elected) on a platform of cuts?

Military cuts? Soft on D
Educational cuts? Kiss the union vote buh-bye.
Social programs - obvious.
Stop tax breaks for churches....adios to the bible folks.

There's a reason elections keep going in cycles.

The minority party always hates spending, namely because it involves spending that they don't like, not because they dislike spending in general.

[BWest]

Obama came into office with the worst set of circumstances a President has had to deal with since WWII. He has had little time to advance any agenda of his own. The majority of his spending has been reactive to existing problems and fiscal crisis that where in motion long before anyone knew his name. Housing, 2 wars, Big 3 tanking, Wall Street meltdown and now.....gusher in the gulf. Exactly where are his finger prints in this mess. If you want, I can help you to begin to understand where Bush and his boys figure into this mess. It's hard to see, but if you look real hard, you will see them at the front of the line.

[The fiddler]

Oh Em....did you really go there? Here let me bring you down a notch with your OWN point. In your research, you point out that in EIGHT years under Bush he added 4.35 Trillion. Okay, are you ready for this...hold on now...listen carefully....the last TWO years of his term was under a Democratic Congress for one...and if that's not enough for you...Obama has the same Congress and has only been in office 18 months...and he is already at the 2 Trillion mark!!!!!! So, by YOUR own standards....Obama will have matched W's debt additions by the endd of his first term....remember Bush had EIGHT years. Really good way to make yourself look like the forum's adopted window licker!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...76-503544.html There is a link from March of this year from CBS of all sources....and this doesn't even include the corrections currently being made by the CBO for the Health Care bill...much less the 142 Billion trying to get added for more unemployment...and oh yeah the 132+ Billion being asked for of teachers unions.

Ha. Pickle you don't really want to go there, do you? Who signs legislation into law? Why that would be the president. So, all of the credit and all of the blame ultimately falls on the president. If the president doesn't like the spending, then all he has to do is veto it. Since the beginning of US legislation, only 4% of all bills vetoed have been overridden by the Congress. That's 1 out of 25!!

Moreover...going on the numbers presented by the OP, since 1980, Republican administrations have contributed 50% more than the Democrats (Clinton the only one) per annum to the national debt.. As in 3 to 2 ratio. Put another way, the national debt PER ANNUM has increased 60% vs the Dems at 40%. The ball don't lie dude...the ball don't lie. Scoreboard is scoreboard. LOL.

The OP is right...the party of fiscal responsibility is actually the party of financial calamity.

[BWest]

Anyone who is calling themself a conservative needs to do the following in order to be a true "conservative". Tell your grandmom and grandpop to get off Social Security and get their asses back to work. People on Social Security are a net drain on the economy. The best scenario is to have grandmom and grampa die on the job so they are productive to their last days. Tell your parents they never better apply for SS retirement benefits including Medicare and you better not do it either. If you get sick and cannot work, you are a drag on the GNP. Mentally disabled people are not productive and force us to divert resources to people who do not contribute anything. This is "market driven economic policy" which is a prized conservative ideal. Social Security is a Socialist program and Socialism is the precursor to Communism. Unless you want to be a left wing conservative, you have to follow the above mentioned steps. So go get grandma up and tell her to get her lazy ass out the door and don't come home without money in hand. If your not wiiling to live by conservative ideals, don't call yourself something that you are NOT! By the way, sports betting with offshore books is illegal as per Bush admin. policy. So, identify youself for who you are and not who you think you are. If your conservative, act like it.

[andywend]

Obama came into office with the worst set of circumstances a President has had to deal with since WWII.

Even if this is true (which it probably isn't), you have to honestly evaluate how Obama has handled the bad hand he was dealt. Saying he was dealt a bad hand is NOT an excuse for poor presidential performance.

He has had little time to advance any agenda of his own.

I wish this was true but it most certainly isn't. Obama has advanced his socialist agenda at an incredibly rapid pace as he has already socialized the automotive, financial and health care industries in his first 18 months of office.

Exactly where are his finger prints in this mess.

Obama has spent an unbelieveable amount of money and has had incredibly poor results. He's wasted TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS trying to get people back to work and the current unemployment rate is still OVER DOUBLE what it was during the worst times of the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, the unemployment rate would be LOWER if he did NOTHING at all. Our country would have been far better off if Obama spent the first 18 months of his term out on the golf course.

I can help you to begin to understand where Bush and his boys figure into this mess. It's hard to see, but if you look real hard, you will see them at the front of the line.

The financial meltdown was caused primarily by the democrats with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank constantly saying it wasn't a problem while Bush and McCain continued to warn that it was.

BWest, you are ABSOLUTELY BLINDED by your democratic party and its very easy to see.

Who signs legislation into law? Why that would be the president. So, all of the credit and all of the blame ultimately falls on the president.

Fiddler, you are absolutely incorrect and you clearly have no idea how things are done in Washington. While republicans have their own special interest pork, the democrats hold the key to the patent office in this area and you would be amazed what gets added on to every single important piece of legislation. The more important the legislation, the more pork that gets added to it as congressional members know they have the POTUS over a barrel.

Tell your grandmom and grandpop to get off Social Security and get their asses back to work.

BWest, once again you just don't have a clue. As long as people paid into Social Security, they most certainly deserve to collect what they put into it plus all the accumulated interest. The problem with Social Security is congressional democrats continue to raise benefits far more than the system can sustain and they have done this for years to woo senior voters over to the democratic party camp.

Its oh so easy and very short sighted to tell seniors, "elect me and I'll raise your SS benefits" and that is exactly what democrats have been doing for years. On the flip side, republicans continue to call for freezes in social security benefits even though they know its political suicide to do so. The democrats only think about "today" and themselves" while republicans think about "tomorrow" and the well being of the country.

By the way, sports betting with offshore books is illegal as per Bush admin. policy. So, identify youself for who you are and not who you think you are. If your conservative, act like it.

Other than voting for McCain in 2008, I officially cut ties with the republican party after the passage of the UIGEA bill in 2006. What Bill Frist did (republican majority leader in the senate) was absolutely disgusting and I can not defend it in any way, shape or form.

You'll be happy to know I haven't sent the RNC a single dime since that day.

[golfrulz]

geez andy give me a break,,,,,,,,you have shown to be the biggest right wing nut job on here. you are blinded by partisan politics and your grasp of the issues is totally skewed. when another poster makes a valid point you take it into another direction just to try to make your point.....which at most times you fail miserably. you have a lot of issues. you have a lot of anger and hate. lighten up. have an open mind. go get laid.