Skip to comments.The national debt increase under President George W. Bush -- $6.1 ZOT
Posted on 08/30/2012 11:47:00 AM PDT by moonshot925
30 September 2001 = 5,807,463,412,200
30 September 2009 = 11,909,829,003,512
Total Increase = 6,102,365,591,312
Increase in by Fiscal Year
FY 2002 = 420,772,553,397 FY 2003 = 554,995,097,146 FY 2004 = 595,821,633,587 FY 2055 = 553,656,965,393 FY 2006 = 574,264,237,492 FY 2007 = 500,679,473,047 FY 2008 = 1,017,071,524,650 FY 2009 = 1,885,104,106,599
Yep, two weeks before 0bama took office, and two YEARS after Nanzi Pelouzi and the Demonrats took control of both houses of Congress.
You do know that, per the Constitution, all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, don’t you?
If not, rather than trying to compensate for being wrong by being even more wrong, you might want to sit down, shut up, and do some research before you post something wrong, yet again.
That is a good point. Under that standard, Reagan was a big spender.
Budgets should be balanced, whether the politicians are fiscal conservatives or not.
If you would read for comprehension, you would have seen that in Post 28 I said "What the Republicans did when they were in power was atrocious."
Here's another history lesson for you: For most of the time since the Eisenhower administration, the Demonrats have controlled Congress.
Here's another history lesson for you.
Do you know what the House does when it doesn't like the budget submitted by the President?
Here's a clue: When President Reagan submitted budgets, Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House at the time, sonorously intoned to the TV cameras "President Reagan's budget is deaddddd onnnnn arrivalllll".
The Won has submitted several budgets. To the best of my knowledge, no congressman has ever voted in favor of any of his budgets.
As has been pointed out to you before, only the House of Representatives can spend money.
In other words, a ~7 trillion dollar budget?
Got a cite for that?
Loonshit/moonbat is gone!
Loonshit/moonbat is gone!
He will blame it on Bush.
Is there anyone here willing to defend the GOP on budgetary restraint? Are we sacrificing so called trolls because they are now pointing out obvious truths about the failure of the two party system and the lack of cajones the GOP displayed on budgetary issues once they wrested control from the Democrats after 40 years? Are we now actually defending the GOP when it rightly deserves our condemnation? While far better than the alternative party, let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that the GOP has performed wonderfully on budgetary issues. Let’s not purge the rolls of “trolls” who are merely stating fact.
If you read the whole thread, I think you will find many have said that the Republicans have not lived up to expectations.
The moonbattery dude had “issues”
“He will blame it on Bush.”
IT was BushWacked!
They have presented two budgets.
To be critical is to admit misunderstanding.
No what we are doing is pointing out to Third Party bots who have NO intelelctual or moral honesty the vast and obvious difference between the two parties
If you cannot rally enough people to take over an existing party all any third party you organize is going to be a pathetic sham that splits the conservative vote and hands the Progressives unchallenged political dominance
Bush and the Last GOP Congress Federal Deficit 2006 $160 billion
Obama and last Democrat Congress Federal Deficit 2012 $1.6 Trillion.
Even brain dead third party bots who refuse to learn a single fact that does not validate their pre determined emotional opinions should be able to do the math on THAT equation.
And Obama and the last Democrat Congress spent a record $1.6 TRILLION defecit in 2010. But of course the Obamabots like WTC911 with their Moveon.org written propaganda will not EVER discuss that fact.
I agree, but tell that to those who won’t cast a vote for Romney.
I expect an answer with that kind of response. Again, do you know what base line budgeting is. Also, what that means concerning fiscal year 2009.
Also, another question you refused to answer: Was TARP suppose to be paid back with interest? Where is that translated in Obama’s “budgets” post 2009? Hmmm, Bush was not a limited government type, but he sure as hell was not a big spender like the current idiot that runs the Excutive Branch.
“I expect an answer with that kind of response.”
He’s dead Jim.
Dammit Jim I’m a freeper. I can’t bring them back after they’ve been zotted!
We see Barack Obama as a man who is still seeking approval from a father he barely knew, a pain that was evident by seeing the reenactment of Barack at the grave of his father. We get a glimpse into how he was raised and shipped from continent to continent and a glimpse of the men who filled the void of an absentee father. Men like Frank Davis, Bill Ayers, Edward Said, Jeremiah Wright and Roberto Unger. All controversial men in their own right. Each of them shaping and molding Obamas Marxist ideologies.
If reelected to another four years it is likely that Obama will only continue to dismantle America that he views as too rich and too powerful in the world today. It is evident by his refusing the Keystone pipe line which would have created jobs that are so desperately needed. His desire to weaken our military and reduce the number of arms we have have to protect ourselves. Obama Sr. had the mindset that we should be taxed at 100% and that it was the government who would give us what they deemed necessary for us to live and get by.
For America to survive it is imperative that we reign in those bent on her destruction and elect those who vow to govern by the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers and not of those of Obamas. As Dinesh so poignantly stated near the end of the documentary that it is up to YOU
Anybody who gets a 1040 booklet from the IRS should look at the back cover. The pie chart will show you where the “revenues vs. outlays” go. This, of course, likely doesn’t include the massive borrowing the Treasury is doing with its now-direct T-Bill sales to China and other creditors.
You refuse to acknowledge the facts in many posts in this thread. Nevertheless, you admit some facts to MNJohnnie:
“I agree, but tell that to those who wont cast a vote for Romney.”
It’s a quick “I agree,” followed by the liberal “but....” Now we’re supposed to go into a diversion of “telling people who won’t cast a vote for Romney...
It’s none of your business who does or doesn’t vote for Romney. This thread isn’t about this, however.
Yes, we know about Republican over-spending was and FReepers criticized it way before you joined. Don’t presume that FReepers are naive; therefore, they should be lectured by a n00b who is defending a zotted n00b troll.
This ain’t DU, I’m sure you know that.
“Repealing Obamacare will do nothing (as the hits havent even hit yet with that monstrosity.)”
Repealing Obamacare will actually hurt as it actually reduces the debt!
Bwa hahahahahahahahahahaha. Man that’s a good one. I don’t care who you are that’s a funny one there. ROFLMAO.
What kind of idiots do they take us for. I guess they are counting on the 51%
Debt Added by the Previous 43 U.S. Presidents
1789 through 2008
Debt Added by Resident Barack Obama
One Term (thus far)
Thanks for the troll-ignored numbers, Lucy.
I told the troll that, according to his own-posted numbers, the RAT Congress was responsible for 3 trillion of deficit spending from ‘07 to 09. I didn’t even mention the three years of deficits without a single budget.
Boilerplate answers come to the usual “Bush’s fault” no matter what you point out to them. It’s a sure sign of desperate RATs defending 0h0m0 and his communist regime that considers the economy performance INDEFENSIBLE!
The surrogate trolls are ordered to muddy the water and to put out published numbers with bogus whodunit.
Truth is truth; it’s no defense of Republicans from this registered Indie, albeit, conservative at heart.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
Soros employee got COOKED : )
The truth, i.e., a failure to vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, hurts, doesn’t it?
I saw this one coming and wondered why it was taking so long.
Looks like another “moon landings were NOT faked” hoaxter got the Zot. ;’)
That’s not the subject of your post to me.
Read my post or read my lips. Here it is again, n00b:
“Its none of your business who does or doesnt vote for Romney. This thread isnt about this, however.”
That’s “no Pubbie since Eisenhower” talking point has cropped up all over. I let someone I’ve known my whole life have it on Facebook over this very same stupid BS. I’m glad you got the Zot, you horse’s ass.
I’ve been waiting for THIS one to get the ZoT for a while now :p
Me too. I was waiting for it, but I guess the PTB wanted a little chew toy around for a while.
Oooooh! Great graphics! Very bloodthirsty. My favorite. [smiles]
Moonshot engaging in moonbattery, plucking financials out of his [unladylike word]. I wonder if that’s a hangin’ offense?
Oh, I guess so.
A lot of us have been vulturing over this rotting corpse, and it’s nice to see it “returning to the circle of life” finally.
Financials out of his [horn sounds]?!? No wonder they call economics “the dismal science”, eh? ;’)
Excellent, DJ! And so stolen... Thanks!
Also neglected is the Democrat takeover of congress in January 07. with only congress able to spend money let us put blame where it belongs. Jan. 01 debt 5.2 trillion. Jan. 07 debt 6.7 trillion. Now debt 16 trillion. Dems are responsible for 9.3 trillion increase in a mere 5 1/2 years. Your yearly increases are also incorrect, Bush’s last deficit was 161 billion. you show it as over 500 billion.
Probably from too much fudging.
Actually, I didn't show anything. I only told the original poster his list didn't include things like you mention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.