Ya know folks, I don't care who is to blame. As far as I am concerned, both
parties are complicit in this massive irresponsibility. We are where we are. The
only good thing that I can say about the republicans is that they are at least
giving lip service to caring about the massive debt. The only thing I hear from
democrats is how to spend even more.
This letter is pure fiction. Here are the facts.From FDR to
the present:Democrat presidents - 8.9 trillion total debtsRepublican presidents - 7.7 trillion. Democrat presidents have
15.5% more debt than republicans.Now the liberals will scream, it
isn’t the president, but congress. Nice try but...The last
time a democrat controlled congress balanced the budget was 1969. Since 1960
there have been 34 democrat controlled congress years, 2 balanced budgets, 32
years of deficits.Democrat congresses ran deficits 94% of the
timeDemocrat congresses - 5.8 trillion total debtIn the same
period the republicans have been in control of congress 7 years and ran a
SURPLUS 4 out of 7 years, and had 3 years of deficits.Republican
congresses ran deficits 43% of the time (majority of republican budgets are
balanced!)Republican congresses - 1 trillion total debtSo
democrat congresses have given us almost 6 times the debt of republican
congresses.The rest of the debt was under split congresses, which
defers responsibility to the president, as the leader and signer.The
truth:Democrats have created the most debt, both in congress and as
president, by a margin of trillions!
ECR, actually Keyenes disproved it decades ago..it was called Says law..build it
and they will come..ahhh not unless they want it, or have the money for it.
"Supply-side economics: 'Economic growth can be most effectively
created by lowering barriers to production (supply) of goods and services, such
as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by ... regulation.
Consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower
prices."That's a nice theory but President Reagan proved
that it didn't work - it tripled the national debt, as has been pointed out
earlier."...there was no data provided to clear the fact that
during much of the republican administrations there was a democrat controlled
congress."The president presents the budget. There is clear
evidence, however, that President Reagan, who somehow has the reputation of
fighting for a balanced budget, never came close to doing so and it is also on
record that in two of his eight years in office, Congress actually passed a
budget with a lower deficit than he was proposing.If anyone can
prove, with factual evidence, that President Obama took office with anywhere
near the positive conditions that other presidents did in the last 30 years, I
will admit that he is a failure. But until you do, I can't...and I
@Eric Samuelsen:"... deficit spending is a valuable tool to be used in
times of national emergency. WWII... But Presidents Reagan and Bush pursued
policies that led to massive deficit spending without a national emergency to
justify it."Are you telling us that 9/11 was not a national
emergency? Did you communicate your important thoughts to Bush?"Instead, they believed in a false economic theory called
'supply-side economics'..."Wasn't supply-side
economics developed by your cousin and the author of my Economics text, Paul
Samuelson?Supply-side economics: 'Economic growth can be most
effectively created by lowering barriers to production (supply) of goods and
services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by
allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. Consumers will then
benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices.'Supply-side sounds like a viable plan for growth to me. If you want
higher taxes, go for it.
Wow, talk about cherry-picking facts!Congress has more control over
spending than the president does. Spending was under control in the 90's
because of a Republican-controlled congress and the Democrats who agreed with
them. Social Security and Medicare take up a much bigger portion of deficit
spending than the military does, and it is dishonest to blame current deficits
on military spending.It is also a fallacy to equate well-being of
the country with amount of Federal taxes collected. Sucking money out of the
economy, right out of people's and businesses' pockets, could never
Thanks, Mr. Burt. It's good to see facts presented instead of just the
ill-based rhetoric of the far right extremists who care more about hampering the
President than they do about fixing the problems he inherited when he took
Excellent letter. Let me add this: deficit spending is a valuable tool to be
used in times of national emergency. WWII, for example. But Presidents Reagan
and Bush pursued policies that led to massive deficit spending without a
national emergency to justify it. Instead, they believed in a false economic
theory called 'supply-side economics,' in which tax cuts are
sufficiently stimulative that they pay for themselves. Not true, sadly, and
we're still footing the bill.
Debt is caused by over spending not under taxing. During the past 4 years the
national debt has increased more than double any debt incurred during a previous
administration. I also note that there was no data provided to clear the fact
that during much of the republican administrations there was a democrat
controlled congress. This, not to excuse the republicans, but so as not to let
the democrats off the hook. They created Social Security, Medicare, aid to
dependent children, and other expensive welfare programs responsible for most of
the debt. They blame republicans for wanting to change the system.. People,
the system is broke!
@ECR: "I see wrz and Mr. Bean are having trouble listening to what is being
said."I can't speak for Bean but I can say that it gets
tiresome having to put up with Democrat talking points.The truth of
the matter is, Obama increased the debt about $6 trillion during his first term
and is expected to add an additional $5 trillion in his second term.
That's about $11 trillion, or more than doubt what it was when he first
took over.Keep in mind that, when a president takes over the White
House he takes control and responsibility over government expenditures occurring
on his watch. It's disingenuous to give credit for the good that happens
on a watch and assign the bad to predecessors, as you seem to be trying to
do.But, as I stated in a prior post '... the real answer is
that Congress is at fault for any and all national debt since no expenditure can
occur without Congress's approval.' And that includes, by the way,
the two wars in the Mideast which were approved by Congress and funded by that
august body since they began.
It's very refreshing to see an intelligent letter about debt here.
Another factor overlooked is the drop in tax revenues due to the Great
Recession. Conservatives argue the debt is due to "reckless spending."
Baby Boomers reaching retirement now is a major cause of increased spending. And
yearly tax revenues are down about $700 billion from 2007, which is about half
of the yearly deficits of 1.2 to 1.4 trillion dollars. The best way to reduce
the deficits is to get the economy growing again, and then, when stronger, cut
spending in areas that will not hurt economic growth.
I see wrz and Mr. Bean are having trouble listening to what is being said.
Reagan tripled the national debt with his tax cuts and his overwhelming spending
on defense (which caused the Soviets to go bankrupt trying to keep up. I guess
that was a good thing). George H. W. and Clinton raised taxes (for which they
were vilified) which put the economy in great shape and which started us on a
path towards becoming debt free as a nation. George W. put an end to that trend
(with the help of a minor recession) by cutting taxes, especially on the
wealthy, and then spent like a mad mad man with money he didn't have and
ended up doubling the debt. Obama has added about 60% to the national debt but
not because he did any of the things Reagan and George W. did. He has taken an
economy that was losing 700,000 jobs a month and turned it around to now adding
150,000 jobs a month and the deficit has decreased during this term, regardless
of what others say. Just look at the facts.
@wrz: "More debt was amassed under Obama than any president in history...
and in only four years. In fact, debt almost more than all presidents added
together."Yes, Obama's debt accumulation was in just four
years. He has four more years ahead of him were the national debt is expected
to increase by over $1 trillion each year. So, his total addition to the
national debt for his 8 years in the White House will total about ten trillion
The Bush Administration also allowed the economy to blow up making it impossible
to pay the debt. This is called the triple whammy. cit taxes to the wealthy,
start unfunded wars, and deregulate private enterprise.
Thanks for stating the facts Richard. But I hope your prepared for an onslaught
of counter claims from the pro-Conservative side of the aisle. And it should be
noted that our current fiscal problems are a combination of those unwise
decisions of the past and the financial crises of the more recent past that was
caused by a number of issues that cross both political parties.And
while there is some merit in properly placing the blame it is more important to
now focus on fixing the problem. And so the most disheartening issue today is
the Republican led House of Representatives voting to leave early for a week
long vacation without addressing the coming fiscal cliff that will impact more
than just federal workers. It will be an illustration of just how much of the
"private sector" lives of the workings of government.
Sorry, Richard, but you're woefully mistaken.More debt was
amassed under Obama than any president in history... and in only four years. In
fact, debt almost more than all presidents added together.You
indicate that Bush's programs of war, tax cuts, and Medicare D caused the
debt accumulation under Obama. You're ignoring the fact that Obama could
have cut all those debt-adding programs the first day in office had he chosen to
do so and had he disagreed with them. But he didn't. So it would be
accurate to assume he agreed with the programs and decided to let them stand.
Thus, the accumulated debt is his.Of course, the real answer is that
Congress is at fault for any and all national debt since no expenditure can
occur without their approval.
So it looks like we don't have a spending problem at all, we have a revenue