The national debt increase under President George W. Bush -- $6.1 ZOT

Treasury Direct ^ | 30 August 2012

[moonshot925]

30 September 2001 = 5,807,463,412,200

30 September 2009 = 11,909,829,003,512

Total Increase = 6,102,365,591,312

Increase in by Fiscal Year

FY 2002 = 420,772,553,397 FY 2003 = 554,995,097,146 FY 2004 = 595,821,633,587 FY 2055 = 553,656,965,393 FY 2006 = 574,264,237,492 FY 2007 = 500,679,473,047 FY 2008 = 1,017,071,524,650 FY 2009 = 1,885,104,106,599

[TribalPrincess2U]

Would be the limited vocabulary of the perverted left.

[p. henry]

Nancy and Harry.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

The responses on this thread show the problem. It doesn’t matter whether moonshot925 is a “troll” or not. It doesn’t matter that Obama was worse than Bush. The fact is that Bush went on a spending binge. There is no excuse for it. Its a dodge to say this was all Congress’ doing. Don’t you remember Bush twisting arms to get Congressmen to support his Senior Drug Plan? Bush sent budgets to Congress that increased spending by irresponsible levels, period. Some conservatives want to close their eyes and pretend that its all Obama’s fault. It isn’t. His spending is insane — true — but Bush’s was bad too. I will never understand why there is this knee-jerk reaction to defend Bush on spending.

[whattajoke]

56 comments and no one here has the guts to mention the two wars while lowering taxes. Or TARP. Medicare Part D was mentioned but that was mere hundreds of millions of dollars, not billions or trillions.

The bottom line, and one that I get blasted for all the time is, we entered two hugely expensive wars and did nothing at all to offset the cost. Nothing. No decreases in spending anywhere on anything and taxes were lowered.

How in the world anyone thought this would work out is beyond me, and I’m sure many here will kindly explain to me how it was supposed to work out (but didn’t.)

Cutting PBS and NPR funding will do nothing. Repealing Obamacare will do nothing (as the hits haven’t even hit yet with that monstrosity.)

No, I’m not saying to raise taxes... But I’m curious what ways others here think will work. I have my ideas, but would like to hear others.

[MarineBrat]

Rats took control of the Senate in January of 2007. Don’t you remember the Rats threatening to nationalize the oil industry after they took control? Geez, what do you suppose talk like that would do to the oil markets?

[DuncanWaring]

I was just thinking about what the GOP did when they had control.

What the GOP did when they had control was atrocious.

But it was a small fraction of what the Rats did when they had control.

[henkster]

No, sir.

This is CONGRESS’ Budget. Lest you forget, the Constitution requires CONGRESS to pass budgets and set spending.

Hmmm...let’s see...who controlled Congress effective Jan. 1 2006?

Oh, and before you go on about a GOP Congress since Jan. 1 2011, I might point out that the House of Representatives has passed a budget, but the Senate has not.

[Wurlitzer]

“I am just pointing out that the past 3 GOP Presidents have been big spenders.”

---

So then you are in complete agreement with all of us that this obomination in the WH who has outspent everyone needs to be replace.

Glad to have you on board.

This is why the Tea Party is experiencing so much support.

Unlike the dems who right now are completely controlled by progressives (you know, people so ashamed to call themselves what they are: Communists) and refuse to admit they are bankrupting us at warp speed, the fiscal conservatives are making their voices heard loud and clear and are pulling the party away from the central planners in Washington.

Again, glad to have you supporting our position.

[Mr. K]

how about you also show us the increase BEFORE Nanzi Pelosi and the democraps took over Congress -vs- after?

[Sloth]

That’s because Bush is a leftist.

[Wuli]

1,384,424,633,552 (22%) of the debt was added in just the first two years the Dims had control of Congress;

while Bush and the GOP Congress, for Bush’s first six years and b4 the Dims got control of Congress, and in spite of fighting two wars, kept the new debt to an average of 533.3bil a year, and by the last year the GOP had control of Congres had brought it down to 500.6bil the last year, a sum just 80 billion above the new debt Clinton was running fighting no wars

could the GOP have done better - absolutely

but the Dims have no place at all to criticize - none

[MNJohnnie]

Your ignorance on this issue is about total. Rather then cling to it, try educating yourself.

[Mr. K]

show us the defict spending each year Mr. Statistic man (as in lies, damned lies, and...)

2001 - ?
2002 - ?
2003 - ?
2004 - ?
2005 - ?
2006 - ?
2007 - ?
2008 - ?
2009 - ?
2010 - ?
2011 - ?
2012 - ?

[moonshot925]

Exactly.

Cutting taxes while engaging in two war and greatly increasing spending for domestic programs led to a MASSIVE budget gap which created the problem we have now.

People need to admit the obvious.

[listenhillary]

Before the drug plan, don’t you remember Bush proposing privatizing part of social security and being told the STFU by almost every Republican?

[DuncanWaring]

All those numbers need to be offset in the "Deficit" direction.

There's "funny accounting" there.

There hasn't been a "surplus" (decrease in National Debt) since the Eisenhower administration.

[Mr. K]

It is CONGRESS who has the bigger say-so in spending.

Look at deficit spending under (D) congress -vs- (R) congress

(pay special attention to 1994 to 2000)

[bkepley]

I am just pointing out that the past 3 GOP Presidents have been big spenders.

Why only the last three? Reagan's deficits were huge for the time. Even frightening.

[rollo tomasi]

Yeah right, Obamabot. Bush was a pushover politically, nothing Obamabot about it. If your argument consist of insults instead of rationality I guess that helps your life in alternate reality, whatever floats your boat, lol.

[listenhillary]

No one has been fiscally responsible. The Role of The Government in The Economic Crisis At this point, everything the government is doing – and not just the US government but governments everywhere − is not only the wrong thing but exactly the opposite of the right thing. They’re passing more laws, raising taxes, creating more currency and incurring more debt. They should be doing the opposite. We’re currently still in the eye of the storm. Their actions guarantee that when we go back into the hurricane − the trailing edge of the hurricane − it’s going to be much worse and will last much longer than what we saw in 2007 to 2009. Doug Casey How nice it would be to argue that Mr. Casey is wrong. No matter how much I wish he were, that is unlikely. We are in for very tough times ahead. Recently I wrote about the insolvency of the federal government and its upcoming default. Mathematically, it is impossible for government to meet its obligations. There simply is not enough income or wealth for it to confiscate. It cannot satisfy the spending path it is on and the promises made. Cutting spending is a political non-starter. As Mr. Casey argues it is politically impossible: … just as in Greece, or most of the EU for that matter, most US government spending is on entitlements and welfare programs of various types − mainly Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, so-called Income Security and pensions. Those things are politically and legally impossible to cut; in fact, they’ll grow. Most of the rest of spending is on so-called “defense,” which alone is 25 percent of the budget. As much as Americans love their military, that’s not going to be cut; in fact, the Republicans, idiotically and unbelievably, want to increase it. The other functions of government − the police, justice and regulatory agencies − are really just a tiny portion of government spending. Impossible might be a bit strong. There will be talk of cutting spending, but it will be token in nature. No politician can afford to truly cut spending. Even Paul Ryan’s “draconian” budget had debt growing over the next ten years. Continued U.S. On The Highway To Hell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2923926/posts