Can a Conservative explain this chart to me? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html?

W

William S

New member
Since 1980 Republican President Regan (8yrs), Bush Sr. (4yrs) and Bush Jr. (8yrs) have run up the national debt related to GDP. The only President to address the debt was President Clinton (8yrs). President Obama is now blamed for spending to get out of the financial disaster Bush Jr. created. How can Conservatives seriously expect anyone to take their policies seriously when they have been responsible for most of the increase in debt since 1980?
News flash Clinton was only President since 1980 to stop the growth of debt. Clinton was obviously a Democrat and had a Republican Congress. Reagan and Bush Presidents ran up the debt. To blame the Democratic Congress is obviously a poor excuse.
 
Can you explain who had majority of the Congress during those times?

Edit: Ok, I will for you

Ford - 0 years with republican controlled House or Senate
Reagan - 0 years republican controlled House, 6 with republican controlled Senate
Bush Sr - 0 years with republican controlled House or Senate
Clinton - 6 years with republican controlled House and Senate
Bush Jr - Your only exception (but I agree that he spent too much).

So you see, the debt grows with who is in Congress, so be careful how you aim the blame. That chart just points at how bad democrats spend, not necessarily the president. Also, look at Drew Bloodsd, he makes an even more elaborate explanation of how the economy works, but don't blame just one party.
 
Whoa! Back up the pity train here! In 1994, after trying to cram a similar health care plan down our throats, the people threw the bums out of Congress and conservatives along with pressure by the people straightened out the economy. Clinton saw the writing on the wall and signed all the bills that made this possible. Of course, the American people are so uneducated and self-centered that they think today that it was Clinton who actually saved the economy, not the Republican's "Contract with America." Be that as it may, we are doomed to go through the same thing and when the conservatives get the country straightened out, Obama will take credit for it just like Clinton did.

Remember, no money leaves the US Treasury without the consent of Congress. Constitutionally, The president cannot initiate the spending of any money. So that makes Obama a criminal!
 
Not without knowing the source of the data and how it was arrived at. You and the makers of the charts make a lot of unproven assumptions.
 
I can explain it quite simply. As the debt increases over time, so does our GDP in terms of gross dollars. For example, $100 billion deficits and $1 trillion GDP is the same percentage as $1 trillion deficits and $10 trillion GDP. It's all relative!

For a more accurate snapshot however, look for a graph that shows the deficit in ACTUAL DOLLARS and not just percent of GDP. It might paint a much different picture because the last time I checked, our debt continues to rise without our GDP rising with it. Make sense?
 
You aren't reading it right. Up is bad. Bush started the bad, and Obama made it worse. I looked at yours, you look at mine: http://flutemandy.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/deficit-chart.jpg

And that little throw away line about 'that is the equivilent of $10 trillion today'? Well according to the independent TARP inspector the Federal Reserve has injected/guaranteed in toxic [worthless] assets up to $23 trillion in the last 10 months. Obama's response to this was to ask the Justice Department to take away the inspector's independence.

By the way, there is a hearing on Ron Paul's bill HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve going on this morning, although it is in recess. Some complete idiots (Watt, etc.) are pretending that because the Fed has 'audits' [with all the important stuff forbidden being audited] it doesn't need no stinkin' audits [with real information.] The Fed has refused to say whom it has bailed out but there are a lot of unpleasant guesses floating around. [Watt had the gall to say Ron Paul should check the Fed WEB SITE for the information he wanted, as if it there were any possiblity the information were there.]

This I don't blame Obama for, per se, in that McCain likely wouldn't have done anything about it either (not understanding the economy worth a damn) but Ron Paul would have, and is trying to.

Your chart converts Truman's spending, but not his revenue which was equally as skewed through the prism of later inflation. And inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve.

Can you push for good changes even when 'your guy' is in office?

Here is the link for the hearings -- they are starting again.

http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia-live/financialserv/16489/300_financialserv-qwertyuiop_070131.asx
 
Back
Top