71% Of National Debt Happened During Gop Presidencies; 28% Under Dem Presidents

[Kosar_For_President]

GOP Presidents Dem Presidents

$9.5 trillion $3.8 trillion

 

Total debt is $14.3 trillion.

$1 trillion of debt comes from before Reagan (NYT doesn't make clear who created that debt).

$13.3 trillion accumulated from Reagan to Obama.

 

71% of the $13.3 trillion was under GOP presidents.

28% of the $13.3 trillion was under Dem presidents.

 

PS And before anyone says "you have to look at who controlled Congress," I don't recall the Republicans worrying about that fact when they blamed Obama for the deficit and the national debt.

 

What's more, I also don't recall any Republican presidents vetoing the debt ceiling increase during their tenure. In fact, many of the biggest causes of the national debt were GOP presidential initiatives, such as:

 

* Reagan defense budgets and tax cuts

* George HW Bush gulf war

* George W Bush tax cuts, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

As for Democratic Presidents, you have Bill Clinton who actually put us in a surplus - which George Bush immediately blew on a... wait for it... tax cut - and Barack Obama who inherited the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression (thus you can't blame him for that, just as I don't include the three Bush recessions or the Reagan recession in the early 80s).

[calfoxwc]

Clinton cut the military. And yes, it most certainly was the Dems that controlled both houses.

 

Reagan had to spend a lot to rebuild our military after peanut brain Jimmy Carter slashed it,

 

and giving all of us DOUBLE DIGIT INTEREST RATES.

 

Deficit spending during wartime is, at least, understandable after 9/11.

 

Deficit spending on a marxist takeover of our entire health care system,

 

and gigantic boondoggle mega many hundreds of billions to.... buy voters?

 

NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. It was bad before,

 

now this nutjob, stupid arsewhole "president" is deliberately throwing our economy out the window,

 

after talking about the exact opposite during his campaign... to buy marxist union and radical poor votes.

 

He won't be elected.

[Pumpkin Eater]

The military disarmament started under Bush I. Clinton simply continued the plan.

[osusev]

lol

 

Military spending...... even though we spend more than all of Russia, China and all of Nato COMBINED.... evidently the Nukes, neutrino, biological deterrents are not enough...

 

http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/US_vs_Global/

 

Those "debts" are always because they CUT Taxes that effect Corporations plus add subsidies (paying them) along with the extreme wealthy

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/16-more-profitable-companies-that-pay-almost-nothing-in-taxes-2011-3#16-red-hat-inc-rht-1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

 

So by increasing costs(military/war) and decreasing revenues (tax cuts) and by deregulating this is the net effect......

 

It should not be this funny.... but the truth and the facts are unassailable and people like Cal THINK they are being represented.... you cant increase costs, decrease revenues and then subsidize US companies to move companies overseas http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/28/us-usa-democrats-offshore-idUSTRE68R40I20100928

 

 

 

Cal really? subsidize and entice jobs to move overseas, increase crazy spending in war and military, cut taxes and subsidize corporations and the wealthy + relax more controls on these industries (fox in the hen house is supposed to "self regulate lmao").... how is any of that going to help us?

 

 

I dont understand how anyone can look at these ideologies and think they are ever going to help us.

[calfoxwc]

You are arguing with yourself, Sev.

 

I have never, ever said I was against corps and American citizens paying their fair share.

 

I determined "fair share" to be the same percentage as everybody else.

 

EVERYFREAKIN body pays, say, 9%.

 

As far as dome deductions, etc, I would say all medical expenses personally responsible for

 

are more apt to be valid, than encouraging some to have children again and again BECAUSE of those deductions...

 

it reminds me of the money single mothers get on welfare... to get more and more for having more and more children.

 

Flat tax. Nobody is hurt by a flat tax. Make a little, pay a little. make a lot, pay a lot.

 

but to lean on the wealthy, Sev, to create a subsidized welfare state, to boost permanent dependent voters on the Dem party...

 

never works for very long at all.

 

BTW, Sev - you do not know how much Russia really spends on defense. Don't be that naive.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

lol

 

Military spending...... even though we spend more than all of Russia, China and all of Nato COMBINED.... evidently the Nukes, neutrino, biological deterrents are not enough...

 

http://armscontrolce...s/US_vs_Global/

 

Those "debts" are always because they CUT Taxes that effect Corporations plus add subsidies (paying them) along with the extreme wealthy

 

http://www.businessi...d-hat-inc-rht-1

http://www.reuters.c...249465620080812

 

So by increasing costs(military/war) and decreasing revenues (tax cuts) and by deregulating this is the net effect......

 

It should not be this funny.... but the truth and the facts are unassailable and people like Cal THINK they are being represented.... you cant increase costs, decrease revenues and then subsidize US companies to move companies overseas http://www.reuters.c...E68R40I20100928

 

 

 

Cal really? subsidize and entice jobs to move overseas, increase crazy spending in war and military, cut taxes and subsidize corporations and the wealthy + relax more controls on these industries (fox in the hen house is supposed to "self regulate lmao").... how is any of that going to help us?

 

 

I dont understand how anyone can look at these ideologies and think they are ever going to help us.

 

We need a strong Military. China is rapidly building up their Navy. Under Obama we are rapidly losing our capability to deal with this threat. Reagan did rebuild our military after Carter severely disabled it. I know from first hand experience. Your anti military bias is showing again Sev. Who kicked your ass?

[Mr. T]

71% Of National Debt Happened During Gop Presidencies with a leftist Congress; 28% Under Obama?

 

It really doesn't matter right now since we are allready in debt and the same old R & D parties continue on with their foolish behavior.

 

It is time to take a serious look at Tea party candidates before we go bankrupt like Greece.

[calfoxwc]

May we also add that Bush had Dems in control of Congress?

 

And do you know who was the speaker of the House when Reagan was pres?

 

Tip O'Neil. He was a Democrat, you know.

[osusev]

Cal,

 

I think we have something in common... I dont mind a flat tax (as long as the tax loopholes are closed and subsidizing major corps who dont need it ends)

 

I am not for "leaning" on the wealthy to prop up a welfare program ( i Love limited welfare benefit based upon education or getting back into a job) I am just for FAIR tax treatments...

 

Buffet should not get better tax treatment he should pay equal is all i want.

 

DieHard.. the military spending is way out of control... I dont mind the growing benefits costs but that has to be offset with cuts to our military spending. We dont need bases all over the world, we dont need more outdated aircraft carrier technology..... we dont need more manned planes... we need to worry about our corner of the world. NO ONE is going to invade the U.S. we have too many dooms day deterrents.

 

I mean come on its been how many years a bunch of poor AK-47/RPG wielding locals have been effective against our over priced juggernaut? (just like Vietnam) Its not about quantity its about effective quality....... Taking out Osama was quality over quantity.

 

Unmanned/Satellite/Nato led interventionism/UN political/ should be how we get things done (unless we need to pull and operation like the Osama Raid) That money needs to be spent on Peace Corps stuff (which by the way is loved every where) or HERE REBUILDING our domestic infrastructure (creating jobs) or micro loans for Small mom and pop business/innovation loans.

 

Outward projection in a global world has already shown that ECONOMIC pressure (Russia/China/Saudi/Cuba) is more effective. Now that the global system is linked together massive military spending is silly ( we need to find a reasonable amount and cut a majority of international bases ) we need to pay attention here because we already have the Nuke.....

 

Imagine 300 billion or 3 trillion(plus accrued interest) dollars over the next ten years being spent here on infrastructure/small business loans/tech grants.... which by the way we would STILL spend more than anyone in the world by a huge margin. Hell IF we wanted to we could cut another 200 billion and make a gigantic payment (2 trillion over ten years plus interest) toward the national debt. AND STILL spend double more than anyone in the world.

 

Diehard we can have a strong military (no one thinks China's military or Israels or Russia would be a push over and they dont spend any where near the amount we do)

 

We need to have a strong ECONOMIC influence which is stronger now than overt invasion quality of military power.... we have the Nuke... so do they and neither will invade each other.

[Mr. T]

Sev, guys like Buffet are not going to pay taxes, they give politicians to much money allready.

 

And the Fed will not being going after anyone else who is of the same stature as Buffet. They will only be going after the slaves.

[calfoxwc]

I don't believe anybody favors the "rich" getting books and books of loopholes to manipulate tax paying to miniscule levels.

 

But, in fairness, I believe the mortage interest deductions should stay for everybody.

 

Just have the percentage for exact same family situations the same for everybody.

 

Not these "it takes a team of lawyers to pay no tax" boondoggles.

 

All too often, marxist-oriented people SAY "pay their fair share"... but they MEAN

 

"make the rich pay 90% of their money so I can get a partial hold of it".

 

Regardless of your income, the rules and percentage should be the same = not too much for anybody, but all families are treated equally.

 

Poor or rich. but our tax code now is so asinine, I can't believe it ever got even to half way of what it is now..

[osusev]

see cal, we can have a reasonable middle ground discussion.

 

Corporate subsidies for the oil companies and others have to stop, tax loop holes need to be closed and whats fair for wealthy or poor individuals on a equal basis is fine for me.

 

I would love to see a flat tax and a massive simplification of the tax code.

 

I bet you and I even agree on welfare being limited and linked to performance of either education or getting back to work.

 

I would even bet that you and I agree on state rights and a shrinking of federal influence on what each state deems to represent their population.

 

I would love to see a reduction in government size and a increase in efficiency plus term limits, politics is not a career but a responsibility.

 

This is what the Republican party USED to represent...... not anymore.

[Pumpkin Eater]

see cal, we can have a reasonable middle ground discussion.

 

Corporate subsidies for the oil companies and others have to stop, tax loop holes need to be closed and whats fair for wealthy or poor individuals on a equal basis is fine for me.

 

I would love to see a flat tax and a massive simplification of the tax code.

 

I bet you and I even agree on welfare being limited and linked to performance of either education or getting back to work.

 

I would even bet that you and I agree on state rights and a shrinking of federal influence on what each state deems to represent their population.

 

I would love to see a reduction in government size and a increase in efficiency plus term limits, politics is not a career but a responsibility.

 

This is what the Republican party USED to represent...... not anymore.

 

agreed.

[calfoxwc]

I bet you and I even agree on welfare being limited and linked to performance of either education or getting back to work.

 

I would even bet that you and I agree on state rights and a shrinking of federal influence on what each state deems to represent their population.

 

I would love to see a reduction in government size and a increase in efficiency plus term limits, politics is not a career but a responsibility.

 

This is what the Republican party USED to represent...... not anymore. SEV

***********************************************

You would win that bet, Sev. That's one thing I wish the next Rep pres would do:

 

Make gov smaller. I don't believe that we need a FED Dept of Education, when each state has one. I think it was a very small amount of each dollar got to

 

the states for education. Good freakin point. Why NOT just get rid of that Fed dept, and get ALL that money to the States' Depts of Education?

 

Probly' the same thing for the Dept of Agriculture. Herman Cain is our guy. @@

[osusev]

Cal,

 

Honestly i have never really thought about the Federal department of Education.... I will have to learn a little more and get back to you on a position.

 

I am not a big fan of quite a few of the federal agencies because frankly they dont work and are owned by the industries or rely on those industries to provide their own data.... just a waste of our money.....

 

You see Cal, remove the bias i have for not liking Bush and yours for Obama.... there does lie some important moderate, logical positions that I think frankly a lot more Americans REALLY want.

 

The Federal Reserve has always boggled me.... and I have always hated how the Federal Government uses Highway funds against the states to bully mandates.

 

I dont know enough about Hermann Cain to have a position quite yet.

[Kosar_For_President]

You see Cal, remove the bias i have for not liking Bush and yours for Obama.... there does lie some important moderate, logical positions that I think frankly a lot more Americans REALLY want.

 

Amen Sev.

[Mr. T]

 

 

You see Cal, remove the bias i have for not liking Bush and yours for Obama.... there does lie some important moderate, logical positions that I think frankly a lot more Americans REALLY want.

 

.

 

I dont know enough about Hermann Cain to have a position quite yet.

 

 

Herman Cain is a conservative and his numbers continue to rise in the polls. People are tired of the status quo moderate bullcrap.

 

Moderate politics = s.o.s. that we have been force-fed over the past 20 years. It only takes one extreme liberal lefty like Obama to make the country want to turn more to the right side of the scale and vote for a conservative.

 

History will repeat itself just like it did after Carter was in office. But I will say that if the GOP stays out of the way and doesn't push some liberal like Christie on us.

[calfoxwc]

You see Cal, remove the bias i have for not liking Bush and yours for Obama.... there does lie some important moderate, logical positions that I think frankly a lot more Americans REALLY want. Sev

*************************

Now, seriously, Sev...

 

what fun is that ? @@

 

T makes a fine point - I still don't see how McCain was the nominee the last time.

 

but when a major Obamao supporter ditches him, and goes all out for Romney.....

 

I'm with Bachmann, and I'm really respecting Herman Cain. He's more than just a guy like Ron Paul...

 

he's quite a brilliant man who has bigtime principles as a human being, he's impeccably honest, quietly? funny, and conservative. I think that's what we need now.

 

[osusev]

Cal,

 

Well the Obama Administration just massively REDUCED the Federal reach into Education by reversing a Bush massive Increase in Federal controls over states rights with "no child left behind" I love the move from a states rights and getting rid of a PR based silly teach a test system versus actual effective learning and experiential/social accountability.

 

I did not know much about Herman Cain but after a little research I am not a fan. His Business "leadership" was based on his analyst background of cutting costs not growing the business. IE his time with Burger King and then his time with Godfathers Pizza where the board basically fired him (after majorly diluting the brand value/reach/profitability/and market share)

 

He is way to religious for me and his ignorant anti Muslim statements as well as his total lack of knowledge in foreign affairs (at his age it will never reverse) is not the type of person for me at least.

 

I like "business" execs but that is such a broad term, he is the cut to make profit analyst type versus the innovative/growth/partnership type of corporate executive. We need growth leadership right now, not one who supports how corporations right now are increasing their profit margins by decreasing (and not hiring) cost by cuts.

 

I think Romney might actually the be the best suited for economic growth, but he is too weak in other areas. I will admit I am NOT comfortable with a Mormon.... their politics an PR campaigns are too dirty for me and the basis of their illogical and very odd rewrite of north american history just does not settle well for me.

 

I just dont see strength right now in the Republican camp.... yet who knows who may emerge. I dont think anyone will that will be better than Obama right now.

[calfoxwc]

Let's see, Sev. Evaluate Obamao using the same criteria and see what you end up with. @@

 

I prefer some Congress/Military experience. Col. West would make a grrrreat pres. Or VP.

 

But West never seems to get any kind of momentum. Odd about that. He's the guy I really want.

 

And Bachmann, she's terrific.

 

The Dem camp has no strength at all, and HE is pres. He's just the most UNamerican pres in our history.

 

Besides, you folks need to stop with BUSH's Fed blah blah.

 

The TRUTH is, NCLB was TED KENNEDY, And another Dem and another Rep (now gov of Ohio)...and BUSH SIGNED ON with them to sponsor the bill. It was basically an "improved" version of a bill that Lyndon Johnson signed into law decades earlier.

 

Truth is, it was a giant problem for education, and the slurs against Bush because of it are unfair, in as much

 

as Kennedy's co-sponsoring that bill. All too convenient, and bigoted.

[calfoxwc]

Home > Opinion > The Education Front Blog Comments 0 | Recommend 1Ted Kennedy and No Child Left Behind

ByWilliam McKenzie/ Editorial Columnist

wmckenzie@dallasnews.com | Bio

 

11:05 AM on Thu., Aug. 27, 2009 | Permalink

There's probably not a better example of Ted Kennedy's skills as a legislator than his work on No Child Left Behind, the law that Sen. Kennedy, Democratic Rep. George Miller, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg and GOP Rep. John Boehner worked on with the Bush administration in 2001.

 

Recall the context of those times. President Bush had won reelection after the nightmarish Florida recount and Supreme Court decision and many Democrats wanted nothing to do with him. The president nevertheless extended his right hand to Democrats, and one who took it was the biggest Democrat of all, Ted Kennedy. He came to dinner with the Bushes, watched a movie at the White House and generally started to work with Bush on reforming federal education law.

 

Throughout 2001, while Bush was getting hammered by many Democrats for pursuing tax cuts, Kennedy kept working on a center-out strategy with the White House and the Hill on education reform. Through painstaking negotiations, the foursome worked with Bush domestic advisers Margaret Spellings and Sandy Kress on the legislation.

 

What I loved was the political approach of that bill: It didn't start as conservatives trying to get liberals to sign on, or liberals trying to get conservatives to sign on. It instead started with both sides meeting in the middle and figuring out a way to produce a bill they both could support.

 

And they had to ignore critics in their own parties to get it done. The education unions didn't like it on the Democratic side, and numerous conservative Republicans thought the feds had no business pressing local schools.

 

In the end, the bipartisan work set in statute this very important goal: We as a nation believe all children are capable of learning at grade level, we will give them resources to do that and we will measure them to make sure they are moving toward that learning at grade level.

 

Sure, No Child still draws ample criticism. And even Sen. Kennedy later sharply criticized the administration for not putting enough money into No Child. But he never backed off the fundamental principle that all children can learn and that we should hold schools accountable for seeing that they do.

 

What's more, he was talking with Spellings late into the second Bush term about rewriting No Child. For a number of reasons, that didn't happen. But Kennedy kept to his beliefs that this law was important for schools.

 

As I said at the outset, his work on No Child particularly reflected his skills as a legislator. He had his principles, took heat for them and fought for them. But he also was a tactician, so he negotiated for the best means to achieve his goals.

 

We can only hope enough senators recall that lesson the next time talks start getting serious about rewriting No Child.

 

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

http://educationfrontblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/08/ted-kennedy-and-no-child-left.html

[osusev]

http://educationfrontblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/08/ted-kennedy-and-no-child-left.html

 

 

cal.... seriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

 

Yes Kennedy was a part but this was the Republican LED initiative and a BUSH initiative. My goodness its not you but the same political bs of Republican or Democrat saying one thing but really doing another.

 

The Republican party grows government spending (military into the trillions and earmarks) just like the dems with Social and earmarks.... They both grow the Federal government. I am just pointing to at least a major Obama led Reduction.

 

No one can Deny that Wall street and Corporate profits have boomed under Obama, PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain Debt issues are effecting the Dow) right now. No one can deny that Banks/Insurance/Auto Manufacturing/Consumer spending/Wall St have largely stabilized and we are reducing our military footprints.

 

I dont know IF Obama has the chops for domestic Economic growth, but he has shown that inheriting and facing a massive near depression and catastrophe he can stabilize the ship. In the face of virtually no viable Republican options he is the best option I see on the table still.

 

 

I know you like Bachmann (frankly I think she is a loon and an idiot like Bush Jr. and has no shot at winning the primary and no shot in a Presidential race)....

 

Hermann Cain

Perry

Romney

Gingritch

Christie

Ron Raul

 

Non of them are electable in a national race. None of them with the exception of Romney and Paul I would consider viable to create real domestic economic growth (paul would be to radical and on short term probably would be a economic catastrophe but good long term)

 

I am sorry Cal but I dont see the Republicans because of the extreme right winning for the next 8 years... Hillary is next and she is going to be a force of nature.

[calfoxwc]

But it isn't a REP initiative, Sev.

 

It is an extension of the bill signed LBJ. The NCLB act has very serious flaws, and I blame every single knucklehead who

 

authored it and passed it for that.

 

All they would have to have done, to make it a FAR more intelligent bill, would be for them to have had ONE special education teacher consulted.

 

At least one, that is.

 

The Bush bashing over it is partisan nonsense, is what I'm sayin.

 

Another point,... when Carter and Clinton severely cut important military spending, the bounceback is horrendus, because

 

then to right that stupidity, it costs a hell of a lot more on the re-fixing. Hey, I was in the military - hell, I KNOW there are tons of waste. But Carter

 

dumped on veterans retirement benefits, etc. That was colded blooded asinine. He dumped on the GI BILL, where they matched for money put into

 

the fund. Sure, it "sounds" like a good idea. But many/most/a whole lot of military folks don't PLAN on college after. But, a few years later, they realize they

 

don't want to be lifers after all, then all of a sudden, it's too late to start up a legit college fund, and you are right back to where you would have been,

 

with no education provided for in the GI bill. And all of that? Didn't make a dent in the waste in the military spending. The military cuts were simply to garner votes

 

from the military despising left - the bulwark of support for the New Progressive Democratic garbage party. '

 

Meanwhile, I have to go and split up a bunch of cut log pieces to heat our home this winter. We don't need no stinkin wood from Obamao. @@

[calfoxwc]

And seriously, SEV, I have no use at all for Perry OR Romney OR Ron Paul OR Huntsman. I like Santorum, but I don't see him as Pres or VP.

 

I really LIKE Bachmann. She's no goof - she's far more a brillant AMERICAN than Obamao is. I still really like Cain, but more as a VP.

 

The guy that gets no press, is Col West.

 

The Republican party has big flaws... as in, the Rhinos are popular with the old fooks of the Rep establishment, because they are tempted to

 

continue to play pattycake with everybody at once to try to win an election - the left right AND middle.

 

I don't buy it. Just stand up for our Constitution, our country, our freedoms, and God, and have the honor you should have, and you are far more a pres

candidate than any Dem anywhere, and still far superior to rhinos like Perry and Romney.

 

Christie is no meathead, but he is part rhino, part loose cannon, and whatever else I haven't figured out yet. Okay, Now I have to go work.

[Kosar_For_President]

And seriously, SEV, I have no use at all for Perry OR Romney OR Ron Paul OR Huntsman. I like Santorum, but I don't see him as Pres or VP.

 

I really LIKE Bachmann. She's no goof - she's far more a brillant AMERICAN than Obamao is. I still really like Cain, but more as a VP.

 

The guy that gets no press, is Col West.

 

The Republican party has big flaws... as in, the Rhinos are popular with the old fooks of the Rep establishment, because they are tempted to

 

continue to play pattycake with everybody at once to try to win an election - the left right AND middle.

 

I don't buy it. Just stand up for our Constitution, our country, our freedoms, and God, and have the honor you should have, and you are far more a pres

candidate than any Dem anywhere, and still far superior to rhinos like Perry and Romney.

 

Christie is no meathead, but he is part rhino, part loose cannon, and whatever else I haven't figured out yet. Okay, Now I have to go work.

 

I'll give Bachman props for slamming Obama on the Light squared shit. That is the type of stuff I want to see. All the bullshit lobbyist stuff needs to go.