It's real simple, see. Policies from one administration take time to show an efect on the national debt. So basically, Carter's four years were so horrible that they led to increasing debt for the following twelve years. Fortunately, Reagan and Bush I were able to make corrections which led to the decrease seen during Clinton's administration. But alas, Bills policies are now all too evident during Bush II's administration.
Now that I cleared all that up, someone please pass me more Kool-Aid.
very interesting, chart. will also be interesting to hear explanations. . .
What's to explain... they all spend like drunken solders..... the reds appear to be more drunken on this chart then the blues but probably offset by strong economy (and increased tax revenue) in some of those blue years.... I don't vote for any of them.... I think there should be a 1 term limit on the lot.
... basically, Carter's four years were so horrible that they led to increasing debt for the following twelve years. Fortunately, Reagan and Bush I were able to make corrections which led to the decrease seen during Clinton's administration. But alas, Bills policies are now all too evident during Bush II's administration.
Haha. Yes, I've actually heard this theory before.
It's real simple, see. Policies from one administration take time to show an efect on the national debt. So basically, Carter's four years were so horrible that they led to increasing debt for the following twelve years. Fortunately, Reagan and Bush I were able to make corrections which led to the decrease seen during Clinton's administration. But alas, Bills policies are now all too evident during Bush II's administration.
Now that I cleared all that up, someone please pass me more Kool-Aid.
That's the way Rush and Hannity explain it for sure. ;-)
It's real simple, see. Policies from one administration take time to show an efect on the national debt. So basically, Carter's four years were so horrible that they led to increasing debt for the following twelve years. Fortunately, Reagan and Bush I were able to make corrections which led to the decrease seen during Clinton's administration. But alas, Bills policies are now all too evident during Bush II's administration.
Now that I cleared all that up, someone please pass me more Kool-Aid.
I don't think it's quite that simple Regan Bush I and Bush II have done plenty of damage to our economy, most results are seen pretty quickly in the economy. I'm not saying that Dems are right either, Clinton did plenty of damage to our country as well. I say we start the Democratic-Republican party!
There will always be explanations because this is actually fairly meaningless. It's 1 simple figure that throws everything else out that factors into the fluctuations in the national debt.
2 great examples are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The government had no control over those situations (conspiracy theorists settle down, I'm just making a point) but had to respond when those situations came up. Global warming, oil prices, the stock market, the housing market, outsourcing - all of those have an impact good or bad so it's not really useful to just look at a simple dollar amount and point fingers. Not to mention Congress has a lot to do with how our money is spent and there are people on both sides there.
There will always be explanations because this is actually fairly meaningless. It's 1 simple figure that throws everything else out that factors into the fluctuations in the national debt.
2 great examples are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The government had no control over those situations (conspiracy theorists settle down, I'm just making a point) but had to respond when those situations came up. Global warming, oil prices, the stock market, the housing market, outsourcing - all of those have an impact good or bad so it's not really useful to just look at a simple dollar amount and point fingers. Not to mention Congress has a lot to do with how our money is spent and there are people on both sides there.
With Bush II, it's a 8 year trend, not some one-time blip on the screen.
Sorry, your theory holds water like a kitchen colander.
There will always be explanations because this is actually fairly meaningless. It's 1 simple figure that throws everything else out that factors into the fluctuations in the national debt.
2 great examples are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The government had no control over those situations (conspiracy theorists settle down, I'm just making a point) but had to respond when those situations came up. Global warming, oil prices, the stock market, the housing market, outsourcing - all of those have an impact good or bad so it's not really useful to just look at a simple dollar amount and point fingers. Not to mention Congress has a lot to do with how our money is spent and there are people on both sides there.
With Bush II, it's a 8 year trend, not some one-time blip on the screen.
Sorry, your theory holds water like a kitchen colander.
so you don't think external factors have any impact on the national debt?
I'm not trying to excuse anyone's behavior - just stating that it's a very simplistic view with simplistic conclusions. People often times see a chart like this and get all up in arms but I don't believe it's a very accurate story because it leaves out all the details (no matter who is president or what party they are affiliated with).
There will always be explanations because this is actually fairly meaningless. It's 1 simple figure that throws everything else out that factors into the fluctuations in the national debt.
2 great examples are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The government had no control over those situations (conspiracy theorists settle down, I'm just making a point) but had to respond when those situations came up. Global warming, oil prices, the stock market, the housing market, outsourcing - all of those have an impact good or bad so it's not really useful to just look at a simple dollar amount and point fingers. Not to mention Congress has a lot to do with how our money is spent and there are people on both sides there.
No responsible household would spend everything it earned without saving for emergencies. Why shouldn't we expect this from our government?
I just think it's highly ironic that the republicans, year in and year out, paint the dems as the "big governement, big spending" louts we need to be wary of. As they get more desperate this year we'll hear it again. I've already heard it.
I just think it's highly ironic that the republicans, year in and year out, paint the dems as the "big governement, big spending" louts we need to be wary of. As they get more desperate this year we'll hear it again. I've already heard it.
Don't be fooled by the rhetoric -- Republicans are in favor of large tax increases ... for your grandchildren, each one of which will owe the Federal government more than $25,000 the moment they are born.
It seems to me that "tax and spend" (the equivalent to "earn and spend") policy of which the Democrats are so often accused is more responsible than the "borrow and spend"" policies of the Republicans.
... basically, Carter's four years were so horrible that they led to increasing debt for the following twelve years. Fortunately, Reagan and Bush I were able to make corrections which led to the decrease seen during Clinton's administration. But alas, Bills policies are now all too evident during Bush II's administration.
Haha. Yes, I've actually heard this theory before.
But the job creation & good economy always occur in the same admin right....it's only the bad stuff that has a lag... ah ha... I think I get it :-)
i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.
A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.
There will always be explanations because this is actually fairly meaningless. It's 1 simple figure that throws everything else out that factors into the fluctuations in the national debt.
2 great examples are Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The government had no control over those situations (conspiracy theorists settle down, I'm just making a point) but had to respond when those situations came up. Global warming, oil prices, the stock market, the housing market, outsourcing - all of those have an impact good or bad so it's not really useful to just look at a simple dollar amount and point fingers. Not to mention Congress has a lot to do with how our money is spent and there are people on both sides there.
With Bush II, it's a 8 year trend, not some one-time blip on the screen.
Sorry, your theory holds water like a kitchen colander.
so you don't think external factors have any impact on the national debt?
I'm not trying to excuse anyone's behavior - just stating that it's a very simplistic view with simplistic conclusions. People often times see a chart like this and get all up in arms but I don't believe it's a very accurate story because it leaves out all the details (no matter who is president or what party they are affiliated with).
I didn't say that they have no effect, only that their impact is inadequate to explain the extended, upward trend seen repeatedly under Republican administrations.
i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.
A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.
Does anyone here really think that we would be at war in Iraq if GW Bush wasn't elected president?
i dont claim to be a political know it all, far from it, but it pisses me off when people blame a debt that high on a single person.
A small oberservation i noticed when i was in iraq was the cost of sustainment gear/supplies/food and drink to keep life going on the bases where we operated. during 1 months time the cost of just GATORADE and energy drinks that are served at the dining facilities on my base alone was over 300 thousand dollars, for 1 month. Not to mention we have over 50 bases from small to large in iraq and kuwait some housing thousands of people. And then theres the fact that there is contracting compaines such as Haliberton who rip of the government and over charge them for their services. Point being not 1 person, or party for that matter is to blame for the national debt. there are so many people responsible for why our national debt is so high, but it seems a bit ignorant to hold a the republicans as the ones who are souly responsible.
It was the Republicans who awarded Halliburton their contracts. A significant portion of which were part of their "no-bid" contracts. This despite the company being fired by the military for over-billing and unwarranted cost increases when operating in Bosnia.
Not to mention, it was a Republican that led us into the Iraq war in the first place.
