Just once I'd like to discuss this without people jumping up and shouting "those guys are worse than us" as if merely being "less bad" is good enough to solve the problem. I know... never happen.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Proof-hunter

Ventura/ Paul '12

Can't be any worst then Bush, seems as if he did his best to ruin the economy and ran this country into more debt then any modern day president. As for Barack Obama, no I have not seen his ideas that you are referring to. I have seen no ideas which would make that $53 trillion a penny drop. Obviously, your assumption is not a fact, its just one man's opinion.

__________________
ShadyPolitics.com - My Blog
ShadyPolitics.com/forum - Political Forum (open)

Go grab Obama's Kelly Blue Book Policy Book. It is all right there in print, as stupid as that was to do...lol.

But he left out some stuff to, like the UN World Poverty Tax, which will cost $650 billion. That alone, is more then enough. What about his new civilian police force? His "patriotic/non-patriotic" company tax? See, you guys probably have never heard about these, or actually cared to look into the fineprint of his policy book. This man is going to do the exact opposite of what he says he is doing.

DOnt believe me? Go read his policy book. Then try and figure out how he plans to fund all that w/o spending more money.

Only a fool, thinks he can do all that without spending more.

__________________
If I had the option of voting 2000 and 2004 over again, I would still vote Bush.

This one is even more relevant. Debt as a percent of GDP.

__________________
"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What we need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." - George Carlin

Right good reasoning.

Cant be worse then Bush, so we will excuse more spending b/c," Hey!, the other guy did it, so why cant he"?

Good reasoning. Please. Dont vote.

__________________
If I had the option of voting 2000 and 2004 over again, I would still vote Bush.

Nice post Doug!
I rest my case...

why the term, "tax and spend liberals"?
It looks more like, "clean up the nasty, red mess left by your predecessors liberals"

Surplus again?

Clintons 'surplus' was a budget surplus not the national debt,which is what the thread title is referring to.

Its been quite a while since the national debt was a surplus.

__________________

He's ending the war in Iraq. That will easily pay for this and a lot more.

Aren't you going to comment on the fact that Bush is about to bailout Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae? Two companies who've lost 80% of their value and have at risk hundreds of billions of dollars of guarantees.

That cost to taxpayers all of Obama's entire campaign promises look like pocket change.

__________________
"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What we need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." - George Carlin

A budget surplus doesn't make national debt higher, a deficit does.

__________________
"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What we need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." - George Carlin

The Republicans controlled the Congress under Bill Clinton.

Additionally the chart only shows ONE time block where the deficit was shrinking, and during that time Republicans and Democrats shared control, and the economy hit an economic boom. (the boom happening for politically independent reasons.)

Both parties have run deficits for the last 40 years. Our current situation with Democrats controlling Congress and Bush in the White House has us running very high ones. Sure, it's all the republicans.

__________________
Economic Left/Right: 6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test