Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe these numbers include either the $300 billion in interest on the national debt or the supplementals for Bush's war. Also, Sec. Snow and the Republicans are trying to figure out how to increase the legal national debt ceiling from 8 billion to 9 billion so the country doesn't start defaulting on payments. To think, we used to have Fiscal Conservatives, now we just have Social Conservatives.
Wow, not many economic classes in Wise County I see. Folks, who's in office and what the economy is doing are not linked together as much as is perceived. It's not cause and effect. It takes time for policies, good or bad, to work their way through the national and global economy. Years even. There is a considerable lag time, so if you want to see the impact of an administration's policies, look a few years down the road at the economy. No different than a new college or pro football coach inheriting either a good or bad team...can't judge the coach immediately; need to see the team when it's full of "his" players that are implementing "his" system...that's a couple years down the road. Same for administrations and policies.
The graph suggest that Reagan did not do so hot, Bush Senior did OK, Clinton did terrible, and George W. has waffled. Impacts on the economy are down the road, not concurrent with the time in office.
OK, you conservative apologists, you can try to shift blame (or credit all you like) but the graph demonstrates that in the past 4 presidential terms, it has been the Republicans who have presided over huge budget deficits. In addition, the period of greatest economic prosperity was under Clinton. There is no a direct cause and effect relationship here, however, the tendency is clear.
I also agree that the recent "special funding" for Iraq war is not even included. Oh, BTW, the national debt limit is currently $8,200,000,000. Yes, that's TRILLION not billion.
Ooopse, I didn't get enough 0's in that national debt number. It's actually $8,200,000,000,000. Gee, I was only off by a tousand times. Kinda like congrssional spenders.
.jpg)
11 comments:
Those "Tax And Spend" Liberals!!!! Oh....Wait... It's those "Borrow and Spend" "Conservatives"!
comming from the party that ..
"Couldnt Shoot Straight" ..
ask Dick Chaney ...
You can use tired old labels all you want, but the graph speaks for itself.
Anybody ever thought that the reason Clinton had surpluses was because he raised taxes so much. Too much.
Lets see the liberals raise taxes RAISE TAXES! Steal from the ones who work for there money! And give it the ones who will not work!
Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe these numbers include either the $300 billion in interest on the national debt or the supplementals for Bush's war. Also, Sec. Snow and the Republicans are trying to figure out how to increase the legal national debt ceiling from 8 billion to 9 billion so the country doesn't start defaulting on payments. To think, we used to have Fiscal Conservatives, now we just have Social Conservatives.
Wow, not many economic classes in Wise County I see. Folks, who's in office and what the economy is doing are not linked together as much as is perceived. It's not cause and effect. It takes time for policies, good or bad, to work their way through the national and global economy. Years even. There is a considerable lag time, so if you want to see the impact of an administration's policies, look a few years down the road at the economy. No different than a new college or pro football coach inheriting either a good or bad team...can't judge the coach immediately; need to see the team when it's full of "his" players that are implementing "his" system...that's a couple years down the road. Same for administrations and policies.
Your poor because you want to be
The graph suggest that Reagan did not do so hot, Bush Senior did OK, Clinton did terrible, and George W. has waffled. Impacts on the economy are down the road, not concurrent with the time in office.
OK, you conservative apologists, you can try to shift blame (or credit all you like) but the graph demonstrates that in the past 4 presidential terms, it has been the Republicans who have presided over huge budget deficits. In addition, the period of greatest economic prosperity was under Clinton. There is no a direct cause and effect relationship here, however, the tendency is clear.
I also agree that the recent "special funding" for Iraq war is not even included. Oh, BTW, the national debt limit is currently $8,200,000,000. Yes, that's TRILLION not billion.
Ooopse, I didn't get enough 0's in that national debt number. It's actually $8,200,000,000,000. Gee, I was only off by a tousand times. Kinda like congrssional spenders.
Post a Comment