Bush bashing

[tommy2915]

Can someone tell me how you win the presidency if bashing one of the best presidents ever is your main focus. This helps our country how? Do these guys have some sort of plan?

[ 11-28-2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: tommy2915 ]

[freespool]

Tommy,your evaluation of George W Bush may not coencide with how historians may view him.


free

[tommy2915]

Somehow I think they will.

[True]

I think you'd have to go back a ways to find one of the best presidents ever. At the very least 3 years. When you find one, Tommy 2915 let us know, as well as why you think so.

True

[Thumper]

Tommy --- The liberals here are a sad lot. Americans will clarify matters next November. Then they will have another 4 years to grumble.

Good one true

You have to go back much farther that the criminal in chief and his unindited copresident to find one that was worth a <petunia>.

[tommy2915]

Thumper,
Ill have to agree with both points you make.Especially the sad lot part.

[cphatts]

W is one of the best ever???? If anyone sincerely believes that they better look at things more objectively. He is dividing both our country and the world. Shameful.

[ 11-29-2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: tommy boy ]

TB,
Step back and look things over without letting your politics get in the way.

The political division that you are blaming Bush for started many years ago in the US Senate. It was made worse by the likes of Clinton and Dashel during the Clinton presidency. “Bipartesenship” according to the Democrat leadership means give us what we want or we will whine to the press or create mass gridlock (gridlock is a good thing).

I also feel that Bush is far better than the other choices we had, but far from one of the best presidents we’ve had.

The Democrats need to get it together and take control of their party back from the present extreme left (socialist) leadership, if they ever want to regain power. Until then I will continue to hold my nose and vote Republican.


#2

[ 11-29-2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Birdnest]

I love the fact that President Bush lets it all hang out. He makes tough calls, takes his bumps, gets up and presses on...acting like a leader.

He doesn't seem to be handicapped by the "I sure hope they elect me to a second term" syndrome. You've gotta play full speed. He is president during one of the most difficult times in American history and I am glad he's the one in there.

Joe

[gottafish]

I agreee with birdsnest, I wonder what anybody would do in his place. a lot of pressuer for sure.

[cphatts]

I agree that it takes a lot of guts to do what he has, and I also admire his ability to let it all hang out. But, just because someone lets it all hang out doesnt mean they are necessarily making the best decisions. An analogy is a football coach, no matter how much enthusiasm they have, if they dont win games, they get fired. Bush has a lot of rhetoric, but the jury is still out on the effectivesness of his policies.

[River Ranger]

I could really care less how the rest of the world views us!If some of these countries have a problem maybe we should hold back on some of that foreign aid some countries receive and put it to good use here.
R.R.

Originally posted by Thumper:
Tommy --- The liberals here are a sad lot. Americans will clarify matters next November. Then they will have another 4 years to grumble.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Jack you disappoint me....again

[Thumper]

Stew --- What did I say that would disappoint you? I believe the statement is correct. Entirely 100% correct. Sorry you are "disapointed". Next November you will have a real reason to be disappointed.

[ 11-29-2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

Originally posted by Thumper:
Stew --- What did I say that would disappoint you? I believe the statement is correct. Entirely 100% correct. Sorry you are "disapointed". Next November you will have a real reason to be disappointed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

The liberals here a a sad lot

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That one Jack! Why you have to come on like your views are superior and those who don't agree with your views are some sort of "lesser" form of life is beyond me.
I'm not going to argue the November election with you because it's a year away I just wish you could get your point across without the name calling.

[Thumper]

Because liberals are a sad lot. They are defeatists, hoping (I suspect) for bad news from Iraq.

The democratic party has abandoned its great conservative roots to espouse liberalism. Great democrats like JFK, Roosevelt and Truman would turn over in their graves listening to the milquetoasts who now seemingly control the Democratic party.

A sad lot indeed. :depressed:

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Stew:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The liberals here a a sad lot

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That one Jack! Why you have to come on like your views are superior and those who don't agree with your views are some sort of "lesser" form of life is beyond me.
I'm not going to argue the November election with you because it's a year away I just wish you could get your point across without the name calling. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree. It seems too many can't express themselves without making judgment of others.

If something represents a "sad lot", it is the inability of some to disagree agreeably. There seems to be a trend, too, that that attitude is expressed more by those with more conservative beliefs.

[Thumper]

[quote]Originally posted by Straydog:

If something represents a "sad lot", it is the inability of some to disagree agreeably. There seems to be a trend, too, that that attitude is expressed more by those with more conservative beliefs.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Errr, Uhhh, OK, I may agree with you there Straydog. I think. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[cphatts]

Keta:

I respect your views as you seem well informed. I agree that both parties are polarizing, but I dont think Bush is helping the cause in the least bit. I admire him being a stand up guy for what he beleives in, but I also dont think the majority of his policies reflect the views of the average American. I think if he moved a little more towards the center, he would win re-election easily, but I dont see that happening. There are two types of politicians; those who represent their constituents, and those who represent their own ideals. I think Bush falls in the latter which may be his achilles heel next fall. I also don't think, as of right now, he will have much of a legacy. If he gets re-elected he will have an opportunity to change that, but as of right now I dont see much of a legacy. Hardly the sign of a great president, Republican or Democrat.

[ 11-29-2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: tommy boy ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by tommy boy:
I think if he moved a little more towards the center, he would win re-election easily, but I dont see that happening. There are two types of politicians; those who represent their constituents, and those who represent their own ideals. I think Bush falls in the latter which may be his achilles heel next fall. I also don't think, as of right now, he will have much of a legacy.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I want a president to act on his own convictions. I'm not interested in one that looks to the polls as both Clintons do.

And I think that pursuit of the war on terror is one heck of a legacy.

[ 11-29-2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[cphatts]

And I think that pursuit of the war on terror is one heck of a legacy. [/qb][/QUOTE]

The pursuit of terrorism would be a no brainer for any president in office during 9/11, Republican or Democrat. This isnt anything monumental. The question is how effective is he at defeating terrorism while simultaneously maintaining successful relations, and keeping peace with the rest of the world. As of right now, I think he has been successful at one of these objectives and disasterous at the other. Far from a legacy.

[ 11-29-2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: tommy boy ]

[Steelhead Hound]

You people are to much.

[Oabrook Abram]

[ 12-01-2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Oabrook Abram ]

[Oabrook Abram]

Originally posted by tommy2915:
Can someone tell me how you win the presidency if bashing one of the best presidents ever is your main focus. This helps our country how? Do these guys have some sort of plan?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The plan is to win. Running for any high office is expensive and a lot of favors are owed by the time it gets to the end of the campaign trail. Strategies are chosen, or not, by the campaign manager, staff, and, quite possibly, the candidate as well. Obviously some strategies work and some don't. Whether or not the candidates actually believe everything their saying is really an unknown factor. Looking at the overall presence of the candidates and who they represent is one way to assess their ability and possible motives. During debates, while under pressure, it is sometimes possible to gain a little knowledge of the candidates’ intensions and sharpness. We human beings are very gullible, even if skeptical, and have been raised in an 'entertain me' society. Only time will tell if our choices as a group are leading down any path worth while. And who’s to tell which is??? I have my opinions, but so does everyone else.

[hot wire]

You know what? I would rather fight our current WW III over seas, than here again. AND, I would rather we (the US) lead the rest of the word in fighting the same same war over seas. Make no mistake about it. Either we stood by and allowed the senseless attacks to continue (here) or we get off our ***** and show the world that we are not going to put our head in the sand and act like cowards. We are THE world's super-power. I applaud the President's decision to do what he's doing. I bet all the nay-sayer's right now where once on Bush's side.......but now lost their stomach for the REAL war.---For them, I am ashamed....United we conquor, divided we fall. The world has to eventially come aboard or it will never end. I honestly can't understand why people can't see this.

It's a darn good thing people with such obvious weak stomachs weren't around when we had the Revolutionary and Civil wars.

JHHO. Tom

[lost_sailor]

If you are campaigning to unseat an incumbent, you almost have to point out the bad and nasty things he's done. An incumbent runs on his record, and that record is open for debate.

Well, except all the secret stuff.

[feisty's wife]

Not to worry, he will just steal it again if he has to...you good peaple dont really think we thw sheeple have a choice anymore, do you? Our nation is doomed, we no longer even protect our own borders, we have lost it.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
If you are campaigning to unseat an incumbent, you almost have to point out the bad and nasty things he's done. An incumbent runs on his record, and that record is open for debate.

Well, except all the secret stuff.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Good points

Originally posted by feisty:

Not to worry, he will just steal it again if he has to...you good peaple dont really think we thw sheeple have a choice anymore, do you? Our nation is doomed, we no longer even protect our own borders, we have lost it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah, that's a good excuse to not care anymore. And get over it, nobody stole anything......

stolen election

[ 12-08-2003, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Very funny Hoosier Daddy- but I would have to say that it has recently been the adopted symbol of the Bush administration.

It seems that they are unable to take harsh criticism with any grace at all.

I think what fuels most of this harsh criticism is a deep fear amongst liberals that we are losing our democratic republic to extremely powerful corporations. As the lobby groups behind these large corporations slowly errode the system of checks against this accumulation of power, it SEEMS to be that the political right wing is going out of its way to let it happen.

I will just say now that I am in this camp. I haven't seen Bush do one thing yet to empower people. Maybe Clinton didn't either, but it seemed like he at least resisted it, a little bit.

They are all crooks, of course, its the nature of the game, but we can still make them do our will if we push in the right places. If we remove the rules for the multi-nationals, they will take no prisoners. It's the nature of things.

[freespool]

This is officially an election year,soooo that means it Bush bashing season,get used to it. Give it another 6 months,then the really nasty stuff will come out. At least we bash the guy that's sill in office,or is Bill Clinton running again?


free

[TheRogue]

Even though I'm not a "conservative", I am man enough to avoid the name calling.

Of course, if being a "liberal" means that I'd like to be able to pay for the things that we purchase:

Incoming $$ = outgoing $$

then I guess that's what I am.

As for the Clinton years, well, we were almost completely balanced, it took quite a while to get to that point.

As for your tone, well, I was pointing out that the "conservative" years were far and away the worst for growing deficits, nothing more.

My friendly .02

TR

[Hoosier Daddy]

I will edit that. Sorry for my tone. I guess I misinterpreted yours..... my apologies. I wasn't trying to call you names, just jabbing back for what I thought was a smart-ass remark that I didn't think was warranted (nor is questioning someone's manhood).

Still, calling names is childish, and whether it was intended or not deserves an apology, so I apologize. I shouldn't have said that.

I have been aware that Reagan was a major debt increaser since he was in office. Thanks for pointing out my error on the balancing budget stuff.

Did some more work. No surprise that one of the highest increases to the national debt was during FDR.

The highest increases (% wise) came during 1835-1839 years, course, they started at a debt of 35,000 bucks!! So any increase then looked huge as a percentage.

This is completely as a "what it's worth" kind of thing....
Jr. ranks 44th by percent increase (for the 2003 figures), previous years were 63 and 107 rankings.

Clinton's worst year, I think his first, put him at around 66, his best was in the high 100's. Pretty good.

Reagan was worse, with the rankings in the 30's (31st worst increases, for example)

Bush Sr. was a little better than Reagan, around the 50's.

Bottom line, Bush Jr. = pretty bad increases to the debt, but percentage wise, not nearly the worst in history......
....
still, I'm talking percentage increases, the dollar figures are still staggering.


again, this stuff is mostly my own math from website data, so don't ask for links, you'd have to go to the debt clock site and get the data and check my maths that way. None of it's earth shattering though.

[ 12-08-2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[TheRogue]

Sometimes, I might come across as a smart a**!! :grin:

Apology accepted, I've had those type of days myself.

So, the question is....can this country continue down the path of ever-increasing national debt? Most economists say no, at least all the ones that I've ever read about.

Increased income and production from tax decreases will never bring in enough to cover the lost revenue, this is something else that's pretty much agreed upon, I believe...I know that Greenspan has said in numerous times.

We're caught in a very nasty circle here, can't imagine how we're going to get out of it. Just hope there's something left for me when I'm an old guy and just want my SS check to subsidize my fishing income!

TR

[Hoosier Daddy]

agreed

[Floater]

Because of this topic, I did a little research on some current key figures and the jobs that they have held. It's interesting to see where and for whom these men have worked:

George W. Bush - President,
Governor (Texas)
Managing General partner of the Texas Rangers
Audit Committee for Harken Energy (during an $8million
Arthur Anderson accounting scandal)
Pilot - Texas Air National Guard (grounded for “failure to accomplish annual medical examination” after he "he decided to stick around Alabama for a few months and didn't return to his Houston post until he was required to receive an annual physical")
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/pr...george-w-bush/

Dick Cheney - Vice President (G. W. Bush),
Secretary of Defense (Geo. Bush Sr.),
Deputy Assistant to the President (G. Ford),
Assistant to the President (G. Ford),
White House Chief of Staff (G. Ford),
U.S. Congressman for Wyoming,
U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity (R. Nixon)

Powell - Secretary of State (G.W. Bush),
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Geo. Bush Sr.),
Assistant to Office of Management and Budget (R. Nixon),
Assistant to Defense Secretary (R. Reagan),
Presidential Security Adviser (R. Reagan)

Donald Rumsfeld - 21st Secretary of Defense (G.W. Bush),
13th Secretary of Defense (G. Ford),
White House Chief of Staff (G. Ford),
U.S. Ambassador to NATO,
CEO of two Fortune 500 companies,
U.S. Congressman for Illinois

[Hoosier Daddy]

Not sure where you are going with that.....

and what is the relevance of those former jobs...like how does it compare with your "average" politician.....

Honestly, it looks like the last three are extremely well qualified for their current jobs, just based on their past jobs and skills.

[ 12-08-2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[foxer]

Remeber that a big part of the debt is because of increased military/security spending due to 9/11. I wonder what the deficit was like the year of/after Pearl Harbor?

[El-Kabong]

actually military spending is only about 45%. the rest is an open door spending policy in the republican controlled house and senate and a republican president who will not use his veto.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Since I've been in the thick of this, let me clear a couple things up. I know I come across as a Bush loving ultra-conservative sometimes. Let me say that I am not that conservative and I don't love Jr. But, I also am trying to be a realist. An example. I absolutely hated Clinton. I mean almost irrationally. I got it in my head that he was a liar before he was elected, and couldn't stand to see someone that would tell everyone what they wanted to hear to get/stay elected. I had horrible visions of what he was going to do in office. However, after 4 years, even I had to admit it wasn't anywhere near as bad as I had feared. I still don't like him, and never will. And I will always believe the people I voted for instead were a better choice. But the bottom line is that the country didn't fall apart. I still have a low opinion of his character, which was my primary beef to start with. But we survived, and he did do some good.

All I am trying to do when I pipe in about GW is point this kind of thing out. Dubya has made mistakes and he will make more. But we will survive. And if he has made more mistakes than most Americans think he should have, he will be voted out. Plain and simple. I realize that some people look at his character or leadership or presidency in the same way I looked at Clinton's character. I just hope they are willing to be honest with themselves and others when his time is up. If he ends up doing the things some accuse him of, or heads us down the roads some fear, you won't have to tell anyone how bad he was. We'll all know.

One last thing that I try to remind myself and I think that the rest of us "ugly conservatives" should try to remember is that LIG didn't exist when Clinton was in office. If it did, I can pretty much guarantee that it would have been just as full of anti-Clinton rhetoric as it is anti-Bush rhetoric right now.

Bottom line is that for as long as I can remember, whoever is in power has been getting bashed by the folks that voted for the other candidate(s). The reasons for this probably don't matter, it's just the way it is. I've done it, you've done it, and I'm pretty sure we'll all do it again.

So bash away darnit. Them's the perks of bein' free..........

[ 12-08-2003, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[DanS]

That was cool, Hoosier D. You are a very aware person.

[lost_sailor]

the baby in that picture just got a look at the interest payment on the national debt.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by Jimmy Carl Black:
Very funny Hoosier Daddy- but I would have to say that it has recently been the adopted symbol of the Bush administration.

It seems that they are unable to take harsh criticism with any grace at all.

I think what fuels most of this harsh criticism is a deep fear amongst liberals that we are losing our democratic republic to extremely powerful corporations. As the lobby groups behind these large corporations slowly errode the system of checks against this accumulation of power, it SEEMS to be that the political right wing is going out of its way to let it happen.

I will just say now that I am in this camp. I haven't seen Bush do one thing yet to empower people. Maybe Clinton didn't either, but it seemed like he at least resisted it, a little bit.

They are all crooks, of course, its the nature of the game, but we can still make them do our will if we push in the right places. If we remove the rules for the multi-nationals, they will take no prisoners. It's the nature of things.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think I would have to agree with you on a lot of that. It was a joke after all. And a dated one at that. I heartily agree with the observation that we are losing our democratic way of life to corporations. I don't believe it is a Republican phenomenon though (not that you said it was). However, if you look back at our nations history, and our numerous political scandals (especially in regards to conflict-of-interest type stuff) you have to wonder how "new" this stuff is. Seems to be business as usual. Not that that makes it OK, but the fact is we have survived it before.......
( I was wrong about the debt stuff, Clinton worked on not increasing it, I thought we had made some dents in it, turns out it has always gone up.....)

[ 12-08-2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[BrokeItOff]

Bashing on either side does not help. Here are the issues that I am looking at in the up coming election:

1. Movement of technology development and manufacturing off-shore. It seems many companies are selling the future of America off for short-term corporate gains.

2. Deficit spending, sure I want to pay fewer taxes but I know spending has to give. To be honest I still don't know where cuts should happen but until then cutting taxes is not a great idea. This I know, cut spending and then cut taxes.

3. Security. Personnally I feel pretty secure, but I really did not think too much about it before 9/11. I took it for granted. Now I believe funding intelligence and military is important, but using these tools correctly is an issue.

Those are my big three. Hopefully they will be addressed soon with some level of detail and thought, not just sound bites and negativity.

Shane

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:


And LS, I agree about the national debt, that cannot be good. However, and this will require giving Clinton (and the congress during his tenure) credit, didn't we get out of more enormous debt than that in, what, about 6 years? I'm not a fan or racking up debt, but the way I understood it, we were in the black for a few years, weren't we, or am I wrong on that? Again, not that it's not a problem, but maybe it's not as "big" a problem as it would seem to those of us dealing in 1,000's instead of trillions of dollars......I dunno.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, Clinton and Congress balanced the budget, which meant not ADDING to the national debt. The debt became a monster starting in the Reagan days (does that surprise you??)

TR

[Hoosier Daddy]

No , it doesn't surprise me. I was aware of that.

As a matter of fact I did some digging, and this is what I found...highest 15 years of increasing debt....
Date Debt Increase Percent
12/31/84 1662966000000 252264000000 17.88%
12/31/83 1410702000000 213629000000 17.85%
12/31/75 576649000000 83984000000 17.05%
12/31/85 1945941616460 282975616460 17.02%
12/31/82 1197073000000 168344000000 16.36%
9/30/91 3665303351697 431989899920 13.36%
12/31/76 653544000000 76895000000 13.33%
9/28/90 3233313451777 375882491590 13.15%
12/5/03 6937966948177 709730982580 11.40%
9/30/92 4064620655522 399317303825 10.89%
9/30/88 2602337712041 252060821088 10.72%
12/31/81 1028729000000 98519000000 10.59%
9/30/87 2350276890953 224974274295 10.59%
12/31/80 930210000000 85094000000 10.07%
12/30/77 718943000000 65399000000 10.01%


Not sure how this will print out here, but basically, most of the years of highest increase in the debt have occurred during the Reagan and Bush(s) administrations. Carter wasn't great either.


For comparison, Clinton years
Date debt increase percent
9/30/00 5674178209887 17907308271 0.32%
9/30/99 5656270901615 130077892718 2.35%
9/30/98 5526193008898 113046997500 2.09%
9/30/97 5413146011397 188335072262 3.60%
9/30/96 5224810939136 250828038426 5.04%
9/29/95 4973982900709 281232990696 5.99%
9/30/94 4692749910013 281261026874 6.38%
9/30/93 4411488883139 346868227618 8.53%


still going up, but not as bad.

I know it's surprising TR, but some of us conservatives are willing to see problems and do some research before popping off, and admit when we were misguided. Hopefully it will be contagious huh?

Apparently my comment about giving Clinton credit for helping balancing the budget had no impact, or just wasn't read.

1950-Present figures....
Date Debt Increase Percent
12/5/03 6937966948177 709730982580 11.40%
9/30/02 6228235965597 420772553397 7.25%
9/28/01 5807463412200 133285202313 2.35%
9/30/00 5674178209887 17907308271 0.32%
9/30/99 5656270901615 130077892718 2.35%
9/30/98 5526193008898 113046997500 2.09%
9/30/97 5413146011397 188335072262 3.60%
9/30/96 5224810939136 250828038426 5.04%
9/29/95 4973982900709 281232990696 5.99%
9/30/94 4692749910013 281261026874 6.38%
9/30/93 4411488883139 346868227618 8.53%
9/30/92 4064620655522 399317303825 10.89%
9/30/91 3665303351697 431989899920 13.36%
9/28/90 3233313451777 375882491590 13.15%
9/29/89 2857430960187 255093248146 9.80%
9/30/88 2602337712041 252060821088 10.72%
9/30/87 2350276890953 224974274295 10.59%
9/30/86 2125302616658 179361000199 9.22%
12/31/85 1945941616460 282975616460 17.02%
12/31/84 1662966000000 252264000000 17.88%
12/31/83 1410702000000 213629000000 17.85%
12/31/82 1197073000000 168344000000 16.36%
12/31/81 1028729000000 98519000000 10.59%
12/31/80 930210000000 85094000000 10.07%
12/31/79 845116000000 55909000000 7.08%
12/29/78 789207000000 70264000000 9.77%
12/30/77 718943000000 65399000000 10.01%
12/31/76 653544000000 76895000000 13.33%
12/31/75 576649000000 83984000000 17.05%
12/31/74 492665000000 22766960445 4.85%
12/31/73 469898039555 20599973436 4.58%
12/29/72 449298066119 25167104159 5.93%
12/31/71 424130961960 34972558270 8.99%
12/31/70 389158403690 20932822436 5.68%
12/31/69 368225581254 10196956252 2.85%
12/31/68 358028625003 13365615258 3.88%
12/29/67 344663009745 15343760379 4.66%
12/30/66 329319249367 8415139325 2.62%
12/31/65 320904110042 2963637324 0.93%
12/31/64 317940472718 8593627659 2.78%
12/31/63 309346845059 5876764570 1.94%
12/31/62 303470080489 7301319274 2.47%
12/29/61 296168761215 5951945973 2.05%
12/30/60 290216815242 -580956476 -0.20%
12/31/59 290797771718 7875348134 2.78%
12/31/58 282922423584 8024639293 2.92%
12/31/57 274897784291 -1729743705 -0.63%
12/31/56 276627527996 -4141025193 -1.47%
12/30/55 280768553189 2018738798 0.72%
12/31/54 278749814391 3581694262 1.30%
12/31/53 275168120129 9097058491 3.42%
6/30/53 266071061639 6965882853 2.69%
6/30/52 259105178785 3883201971 1.52%
6/29/51 255221976815 -2135375536 -0.83%
6/30/50 257357352351 ----- ----


This all came from the National Debt Clock site, I did the math and percent increases though, so errors are my fault, of course, there aren't any.... :grin:

There are only 4 years since 1950 that we have cut into the debt at all....

[ 12-08-2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[NEUTRON]

HD, I think the problem is you haven't been playing enough hoops... Send me a PM, hoser.

[Silver Hilton]

Something to think about is that the interest on the current total debt is very similar in size to our current deficit (I believe interest payments are going to be about 15% of the 2004 budget, equalling about 330 billion dollars). If we had been fiscally responsible for the past 25 years, we'd be pretty close to having a balanced budget now.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by NEUTRON:
HD, I think the problem is you haven't been playing enough hoops... Send me a PM, hoser.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's probably it!
....hoser Daddy.....I like it.....

[tommy2915]

HD,
Your right Clinton did do some good. He took an un Known intern and helped her make a name for herself. He also taught us that you can lie under oath and its OK.

[freespool]

Tommy I know it's very hard to grasp but Bill Clinton isn't running for office. Please concentrate your slams on people that are running. It makes it a lot more fun that way.


free

[Royal]

Interesting stuff about the history of some of our countries leaders. I just personally would not trust rotten.com as a great or unbiased source for news.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by foxer:
Remeber that a big part of the debt is because of increased military/security spending due to 9/11. I wonder what the deficit was like the year of/after Pearl Harbor?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Date Debt Increase %increase
6/30/1947 258286383109 -11135716065 -4.13%
6/28/1946 269422099173 10739911763 4.15%
6/30/1945 258682187410 57678800189 28.70%
6/30/1944 201003387221 64307296891 47.04%
6/30/1943 136696090330 64273645214 88.75%
6/30/1942 72422445116 23461001581 47.92%
6/30/1941 48961443536 5993912498 13.95%
6/29/1940 42967531038 2527998627 6.25%

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Never before has so much experience been assembled in US administration. And at the most critical time in history. Instead of bashing Bush and the current administration we should be thankful that we have the current administration to lead us through these difficult times. If you think a Gore/Lieberman duo would have done better then I want to sell you the Brooklyn bridge. And Dean is, well i'll leave that alone.

[tommy2915]

Freespool,
Thanks for Making me aware that clinton isnt running, But if you would have read my post I was simply commenting on HD post.

[proguide]

I thought we could slam who ever we wanted to.I am sure glad I didnt slam good old Bill.Heads up Tommy

[Straydog]

I just had a revelation while skimming through these posts.

I now understand why the far right conservatives are not succesful in moving us forward.......... they spend most of their time looking back. IE. Clinton, Gore/Lieberman, etc.

PPPPssssstttt, it is much easier to move forward if you set your sights and goals in forward instead of so often looking back and whining about the the past.

Learn from the past, don't dwell on it and you might be suprised what can be accomplished. Heck, with some hard work and concentration you might even be succesful in getting a conservative elected to a high office in Oregon! It has been awhile, you know.

[kamloops]

S.D.


Maybee Bubba should shut his Fat Mouth than.

Most if not ALL past presidents with the exception of Carter and Bubba have not been critical of a acting President in a time of conflict when our troops are in harms way.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by tommy2915:
HD,
Your right Clinton did do some good. He took an un Known intern and helped her make a name for herself. He also taught us that you can lie under oath and its OK.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I certainly hope you didn't interpret my post as support for the Clinton presidency. The real point is all presidents do some good and some not so good. We could talk all day about Clinton's character flaws. Or we could just be grateful he's gone. As much as I despise Clinton, I think you missed the point there.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by kamloops:
S.D.


Maybee Bubba should shut his Fat Mouth than.

Most if not ALL past presidents with the exception of Carter and Bubba have not been critical of a acting President in a time of conflict when our troops are in harms way.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">"Mommy!! Mommy!! Bubba is talking trash again......... mmmmooooooooooooooommmmmmmmm, make him stop!!