Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KMAJ2
Now, let's talk about debt historically, in 1946 the debt was 122% of GDP, the 2004 debt was 63.7% of GDP, compared to 1996 when it was 67.3%.

Nice selective use of statistics there. We built up a huge debt during the war, which was to be completely expected, and then we paid it way down. The percentage was higher in '96 than today, but what you fail to mention is that it was dropping rapidly in '96, and is on the increase now, as Chart #3 on your bottom link shows. And there's no excuse for it going up. The Republicans have been much looser with spending than they allowed Clinton to be, and it's not because of 9/11-related matters either.

65 posted on 09/27/2005 5:57:38 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: inquest

As you like to engage in selective accusations, and ignore the other points, a little comprehension might be required in those selective points you assail. The point being that the debt as a percentage of GDP is declining after 2004. Shall we discuss why it rose after Bush was elected ? Try unfunded mandates left over from the previous administration (i.e. the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996), shall we also talk about having to rebuild the military and intelligence capacity of this country which was cut and on whose back the debt was lowered ? Shall we add the dotcom bubble bursting and the ensuing recession ? Add to that 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq ?

If you want to play silly economic games, I suggest you arm yourself with more than talking points.

Would I prefer that Bush was more fiscally assertive ? Certainly. His proposed 2006 budget has finally shown some fiscal restraint. I would prefer him in the White House over any democrat out there.

You also ignored the points made about social security reform (social security reform), personal medical savings accounts (instead of government run healthcare) and tax code reform (personally I prefer the national sales tax to the flat tax). Are you saying the republican controlled Congress is not responsible for the failure to act ? Aren't those conservative issues Bush has put forth ? Unless this republican led Congress has the backbone to push these issues through, you are not going to reign in mandatory government spending on entitlement programs to any significant degree. Bush cannot sign them unless Congress passes them.


67 posted on 09/27/2005 8:20:42 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson