Hoochy Mama!

Justin, if you actually want to get your head about debts and deficits, try reading this link and looking at his tables and charts. If you would, report back here as to what conclusions you reach.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Some highlights for those too lazy to read and research:
The first seven years of the G.W. Bush presidency increased the deficit by half again as much (150%) as the 32 years from JFK through G.H.W.Bush combined, and somewhat more than the 24 years from Harding through FDR combined (remember, this is in inflation-adjusted dollars).”

FDR had WWII as well as the Great Depression - and 12 years to rack up that moderate increase - which was paid off quickly afterwards.

There is hope. But it will not happen by putting the GOP back in power…...unless what gets done before then (health care, pulling out of wars, energy efficiency, stimulus, etc.) really kicks in.
--------------

So, Justin and other righties, let's hear your summary of the facts and figures shown in those tables - about deficits and Presidents over the last 100 years. I am truly interested to see if we can come to even some base agreement.

Stuart
The National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Ronald Reagan's tenure.

Thanks, Sammy - it might get confusing because the quote I posted are for the combined deficit - not the debt.

These are, of course, two different things. The way the guy who wrote that web page did it is pretty accurate......

Here is another simple chart. Again, our resident rightie hosts should notice what happened under ALL modern GOP Presidents.

GW did much worse than the chart shows, since the country is now pretty much a failed state and there is very little tax money coming in yet wars being fought, etc.

The comparison I have always favored is this. A million dollars, in hundred dollar bills, makes a tack just over a foot tall. A billion dollars, stacked in hundred dollar bills, is taller than the Emoire State Building.

As for all the statements above. How we got here is interesting history, but I am not sure what guidance it offers as to a way out. I am sure that part of it is to suggest that "the way out" is to elect more Democrats, this basedon past history. This is a sophmoric view of history. The chief lesson of history is that "if things had not happened the way they did, does not mean they would not have happened at all". In short, a failure to have elected George Bush does not mean the deficit would not have increased.

Faust, your comments does not make sense.

What you are saying, in effect, is that someone off the street just MIGHT be able to do brain surgery as well as the Harvard trained doctor. In other words, you are negating PAST EXPERIENCE.

Past experience is exactly how we learn. There is very little chance......that we would have the deficit we have now if Gore was elected and had a decent Congress (50/50 or more dem). The fact is that the Dems have been MUCH more fiscally responsible...which is what that chart says.

You have to suspend reality to come up with the statement that we don't have to measure possibilities using past experience. Maybe I should enter the US Open. I might win!
:-)

Anyone can talk a good game. What they actually do or try to do is more important.