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
click here to read article
The national debt increased by $575 billion is FY 2006.
So that deficit figure means nothing.
Make that 3 trillion.
Okay, I’ll take your math....All I am ticked over is that this budget stuff is very politically subjective in nature and highlighting established budget numbers (for which there has not been an APPROVED budget since BHO was elected)and even before when Democrats gained control mid second term during Bush.
I have PLENTY to fault W for - none of that includes the WOT....he did PLENTY wrong, the GOPe did PLENTY wrong. But Obama did EVEN WORSE.
Obama doesn’t care about money; that money is somebody else’s; and they aren’t HIS constituents.
No they have not. But Obama topped that in less than four years.
You meant to say January 2007 right? When did Ms Pelosi take the gavel?
It is called BLACKMAIL and the DEMs are really good at it!
If we take a break from bashing Obama for just a minute, and look at our own party’s track record on spending, maybe we can force them to present something better than Ryan’s plan. Why does the RSC get such short shrift? Okay, maybe we can do that and bash Obama at the same time. :)
SADLY, Trillion dollar deficits will continue with the gOp. They will just maintain spending at 20 percent of GDP, ONE OF EVERY FIVE DOLLARS, and the GDP figures will of course be suspect.
But politics is soooo much fun, so lets not worry aboutit and PARTEEEEEEE
30 September 2009 = 11,909,829,003,512
"didnt the democrats take control in 2006"
Yes I made a typo.
I guess your point is not defensible.
Plus, you have denigrated Vietnam Vets on this forum before. Methinks you are getting short.
Would be the limited vocabulary of the perverted left.
Nancy and Harry.
The responses on this thread show the problem. It doesn’t matter whether moonshot925 is a “troll” or not. It doesn’t matter that Obama was worse than Bush. The fact is that Bush went on a spending binge. There is no excuse for it. Its a dodge to say this was all Congress’ doing. Don’t you remember Bush twisting arms to get Congressmen to support his Senior Drug Plan? Bush sent budgets to Congress that increased spending by irresponsible levels, period. Some conservatives want to close their eyes and pretend that its all Obama’s fault. It isn’t. His spending is insane — true — but Bush’s was bad too. I will never understand why there is this knee-jerk reaction to defend Bush on spending.
56 comments and no one here has the guts to mention the two wars while lowering taxes. Or TARP. Medicare Part D was mentioned but that was mere hundreds of millions of dollars, not billions or trillions.
The bottom line, and one that I get blasted for all the time is, we entered two hugely expensive wars and did nothing at all to offset the cost. Nothing. No decreases in spending anywhere on anything and taxes were lowered.
How in the world anyone thought this would work out is beyond me, and I’m sure many here will kindly explain to me how it was supposed to work out (but didn’t.)
Cutting PBS and NPR funding will do nothing. Repealing Obamacare will do nothing (as the hits haven’t even hit yet with that monstrosity.)
No, I’m not saying to raise taxes... But I’m curious what ways others here think will work. I have my ideas, but would like to hear others.
Rats took control of the Senate in January of 2007. Don’t you remember the Rats threatening to nationalize the oil industry after they took control? Geez, what do you suppose talk like that would do to the oil markets?
What the GOP did when they had control was atrocious.
But it was a small fraction of what the Rats did when they had control.
This is CONGRESS’ Budget. Lest you forget, the Constitution requires CONGRESS to pass budgets and set spending.
Hmmm...let’s see...who controlled Congress effective Jan. 1 2006?
Oh, and before you go on about a GOP Congress since Jan. 1 2011, I might point out that the House of Representatives has passed a budget, but the Senate has not.
“I am just pointing out that the past 3 GOP Presidents have been big spenders.”
So then you are in complete agreement with all of us that this obomination in the WH who has outspent everyone needs to be replace.
Glad to have you on board.
This is why the Tea Party is experiencing so much support.
Unlike the dems who right now are completely controlled by progressives (you know, people so ashamed to call themselves what they are: Communists) and refuse to admit they are bankrupting us at warp speed, the fiscal conservatives are making their voices heard loud and clear and are pulling the party away from the central planners in Washington.
Again, glad to have you supporting our position.
how about you also show us the increase BEFORE Nanzi Pelosi and the democraps took over Congress -vs- after?
That’s because Bush is a leftist.
1,384,424,633,552 (22%) of the debt was added in just the first two years the Dims had control of Congress;
while Bush and the GOP Congress, for Bush’s first six years and b4 the Dims got control of Congress, and in spite of fighting two wars, kept the new debt to an average of 533.3bil a year, and by the last year the GOP had control of Congres had brought it down to 500.6bil the last year, a sum just 80 billion above the new debt Clinton was running fighting no wars
could the GOP have done better - absolutely
but the Dims have no place at all to criticize - none
Your ignorance on this issue is about total. Rather then cling to it, try educating yourself.
show us the defict spending each year Mr. Statistic man (as in lies, damned lies, and...)
2001 - ?
2002 - ?
2003 - ?
2004 - ?
2005 - ?
2006 - ?
2007 - ?
2008 - ?
2009 - ?
2010 - ?
2011 - ?
2012 - ?
Cutting taxes while engaging in two war and greatly increasing spending for domestic programs led to a MASSIVE budget gap which created the problem we have now.
People need to admit the obvious.
Before the drug plan, don’t you remember Bush proposing privatizing part of social security and being told the STFU by almost every Republican?
There's "funny accounting" there.
There hasn't been a "surplus" (decrease in National Debt) since the Eisenhower administration.
It is CONGRESS who has the bigger say-so in spending.
Look at deficit spending under (D) congress -vs- (R) congress
(pay special attention to 1994 to 2000)
Why only the last three? Reagan's deficits were huge for the time. Even frightening.
sorry about the formatting
There will be talk of cutting spending, but it will be token in nature. No politician can afford to truly cut spending. Even Paul Ryans draconian budget had debt growing over the next ten years.
U.S. On The Highway To Hell
1)”The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105, Pub.L. 111-8) It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 11, 2009.
Full title-—Making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.”
The House of Representatives version of the bill includes $410 billion in spending.”
2)”The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ...enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.
Full title -—An act making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, State, and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage, later revised to $831...”
There’s roughly $1.2 trillion that was added to FY 2009 that had nothing to do with Bush. Just Obama,Reid,Pelosi
Don’t you think that Republicans who claim they are fiscal conservatives should balance their budgets?
But no Republican has balanced the budget since Eisenhower.
Shows that even with a liberal bias it doesn’t look good for Barry.
Not really but at least he did finally use the veto pen. He had to wait until the opposition Party arrived, did manage to pull out his pen once while the repubs were in, stem cells, lol, but I guess Party comes before principles. Learning a lot about that recently.
If there was a vision he could of made mince meat of the dems and called their bluff.
NO OPNE here is going to defend Bush II’s spending, but he did have 9/11 and two wars to deal with
AND they tried to stop fannie mae before the housing meltdonw which was the main reason FOR all the stimulus spending
Your figures tell only a portion of the story. Wikipedia gives an informative view of the National Debt as a Percent of the GDP:
Obama and the progressives have pushed the debt up while restricting the private sector.
“Dont you think that Republicans who claim they are fiscal conservatives should balance their budgets?”
Yeah! I think all Presidents should veto unbalanced budgets unless we are at war. Obama said Bush was “unpatriotic” due to the $4 trillion debt he racked up in eight years. What’s that say for Obama? Don’t you think Obama is unpatriotic?
The CBO projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009 on 7 January 2009.
This was two weeks BEFORE Obama took office.
Since May 19, 2012”
That does not alter the annual deicits.
We expect and condemn it when done by democrats, in Congress or as Potus.
We excuse it when done by GOP.
The Tea Party is supposed to change this.
“Dont you think that Republicans who claim they are fiscal conservatives should balance their budgets?”
Name ten fiscal conservative Republicans off the top of your head. Don’t cheat.
We are aware how fiscally irresponsible they have been. That is kind of what the TEA party was all about. What are you proposing?
Did this awaking that you posted about just occur to you today?
2009 should not count, learn about baseline budgeting. Pres. Bush was a moderate spender in the grand scheme of things. I just wished he played hardball more with the dems and some members of his own Party
The way I recall it, the Republicans got kicked out in 2006 in large part because of their lack of fiscal restraint. People wanted to punish them, which is understandable, but electing democrats was a pretty dumb idea, in retrospect.
Obama re-worked it and sign off on the adjusted budget four months into the year. The new deficit number was $1.4 TRILLION.
Funny how your same post is going around DU!
Fact is Repubs lost power in 2006.
Repubs and Bush had nothing to do with 2009 spending. Bush put up a placeholder budget and Reid rejected it.
Obama and Dems blew it all open in 2009 - Stimulus, etc.
Plus, when the democRATs gained control of both the House and Senate, they threatened Bush with shutting down the government, to include the two wars, social security and medicare.
Your point is not well researched, nor is it relevant to the current deficit and debt situation.
In the fwiw department, I remember what is posted to me, and what I respond to.
Was TARP not suppose to be paid back (Plus interest)?
I doubt that those numbers reflect Bush’s proposed budget. In fact, I know they do not. Again, not a Bush fan. Voted for him in 2000, and then realized my mistake after Medicare part D. What a bunch of suckers we were.
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.