Increase in National Debt From 11/01/06 - 10/31/07

Looking at the $ amount of debt is pointless unless you factor in GDP.

 

Why is this (predictably) used as an excuse? Deficit spending is somehow less objectionable or even preferable because of why we have it?

As an aside, what we're now doing in Iraq is building "infrastructure" which includes constructing bridges, roads, hospitals, and things that could/should be built by the people of Iraq or not built at all, IMO. Amazingly, we're even picking up the tab for public education/Moslim indoctrination for Iraqi children which not only violates the First Amendment in its use of taxation but is also contrary to the domestic conservative consensus that education should be privatized.

Then there's the not so tiny issue of the world's most extravagant and expenisve embassy complete w/ gym, cinema, swimming pool, restaurants, and two (!) office buildings for diplomatic business at a cost of more than $1.3 billion. (Sources here and here.)

 

Well nobody, including myself, likes the idea of running up the debt, and our representatives should be trying to bring it down. But a little perspective would be good. Proportionally, it has been much higher than it is now.
Besides which, if I didn't disagree with you, who would you be able to argue with?

 

It is the Republicans that have not held our leaders feet to the fire to insist they do what they were elected to do. Over the last six to seven years, the Republicans have decayed into a moderate to liberal party of big spenders because they were allowed to by the voters. There is no hint of conservatism or leadership in the present administration. This is also reflected in the array of Republican candidates running in 08, especially those at the top.

This is the exact reason Hillary Clinton is going to be elected next year, because Republicans tolerated and supported a leaderless, liberal administration.

 

Bush ran more as a moderate than he did as a conservative, so nobody should have been very surprised that he has governed that way. Remember who he was up against, and that explains why he was elected.


But he is not really out of line in his spending, compared to other recent administrations.

Hillary may be elected, I don't know. I do know an awful lot of people will never vote for her, and she has very high negatives. But don't think we have forgotten your recent pledge to post a video of yourself standing on your head singing the National Anthem if Rudy wins.

 

Well, Pator Larry used to hang out here and I do miss him. :sigh: Pleae post in every thread of mine from now on. :wavey:

(Bolding mine.) That's a matter of chronology. In fact, during primary 2000, he billed himself as the true conservative. Ironically, he also opposed nation building. So, if I shouldn't be surprised that he doesn't govern as a conservative that would mean I never should have believed him to begin with right? Perhaps not considering this past tidbit from Fox News:

This after:

(Outrageous fonts mine.) Interestingly, the article is called, "Drunk with Power, Spending out of Control."

Btw, I do credit Bush with making the right choice on cutting taxes. I just wish his spending correlated with his revenue. As an aside, your chart confirms one of my long held suspicions: when Clinton broke w/ his party and signed welfare reform he became more preferable on economics than many Republicans. Sad, but true.

 

That's true, Clinton did pretty well regarding holding down spending. Though I think it probably went against the grain for him.

Thanks for the invite. I will try and fill Larry's shoes sometimes when he's not around. But they are big shoes.

 

You are getting sleepyyyyyyyyy. You will remember nothing when you wake up.

 

Haha...everyone is brainwashed but you.

 

Doh! ok you were trying to make me forget. Now I get it. I'm just a little slow sometimes.

 

I understand brother. I work your shift also.