Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush's fiscal legacy: bigger debt

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:10 AM
Original message
Bush's fiscal legacy: bigger debt
Bush's fiscal legacy: bigger debt
Indebtedness of $5.5 trillion will limit future US spending options.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the September 27, 2007 edition

Page 1 of 2
Reporter Peter Grier says if you want to understand the federal deficit, it helps to understand some of the terms involved.


WASHINGTON - Whatever happens over the next 16 months, President Bush will leave office having presided over one of the fastest accumulations of government debt in the history of the United States.

During his time in office, federal debt held by the public – Washington's equivalent of a credit-card balance – will have increased by more than 50 percent, to about $5.5 trillion. Uncle Sam will be paying interest on that sum for years to come.

Much of that borrowed money paid for military expenses after the 9/11 attacks – spending unanticipated when Mr. Bush took office. Measured against the size of the US economy, the public debt isn't far outside historical norms.

But US debt had declined during President Bill Clinton's last four years. Some budget experts say Bush has missed a historic opportunity to improve the nation's fiscal position.

"Federal debt – that's the Bush legacy on the budget," says Stan Collender, a veteran Washington budget expert and managing director of Qorvis Communications.

more...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p01s02-usec.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Debt run-ups are done by Republicans as a way of limiting spending on social programs.
Debt run-ups are done by Republicans as a way of limiting spending
on social programs. "We can't possibly afford to help sick kids
with health care -- there's no money!"

At the same time, the spending the Republicans do transfers
vast sums of money out of the public treasury and into the
hands of Republican shareholders in defense firms and the
like.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. The new Bush Stamp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
3. "We are, um, a, like, conservatives - SMIRK" - Commander AWOL
Edited on Thu Sep-27-07 09:18 AM by SpiralHawk
"That's right, we republicon homelanders are -- smirk, smirk, snark - um, a, conservatives, smirk, smirk, smirk"

- Commander AWOL & the Corrput Cabal of republicon Homelander anti-Americans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
4. "if you want to understand the federal deficit..."
"...it helps to understand some of the terms involved."

Only two you need to know.

Republicans.

Profligate.


Every Republican administration for the past 60+ years has spent us into debt at a far faster and steeper rate than Democrats:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

"Measured against the size of the US economy, the public debt isn't far outside historical norms."
Measured against a private sector that's leveraged past its eyeballs, I'd guess it IS outside historical norms. Debts don't magically dissolve with time, we have to pay them. We can't. Not for a while.

And I want to strangle that Heritage dink who excuses Reagan's spree because "it ended the cold war." It didn't. And it didn't "save(d) huge amounts of money in the long term", no matter how many times rightwing pinheads chirp that lunatic horseshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-27-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. spending unanticipated when Mr. Bush took office.
Huh? The people in his inner circle planned to attack Iraq well before 9-11. The Iraq war has nothing to do with 9-11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC