TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › What do you think of the debt crisis?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What do you think of the debt crisis? - Page 3

post #61 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:12am
Elle, I appreciate your dialogue with Carolina, but I provided links to an official UK memo and the text of a speech by the head of the IAEA.

You're welcome to hang on to your faith in Bush and our democratic process. But that doesn't change the fact that our country was rallied to a war we did not need to fight based on manufactured reasons: a war that only further destabilized the Middle East; a war that ballooned our nation's debt; a war fought against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 which was the spin put on it.

Now, because of the recession, maybe the debt would have ballooned anyway. But we if wanted to address the recession, there were better ways of implementing fiscal policy.

You have a problem with the way Obama's been spending money.

I'm not about politics, I'm about facts and numbers. My perspective is the economy. I do not support wars of hegemony, they've never worked in our favor. And the fact of the matter is, to affect our economy, the money Bush spent on the war in the Middle East could have better been spent here, and the world would still have terrorists (and probably fewer of them LOL), but it would be a far more stable place that it is now. IMO.
Reply
post #62 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Did you watch the presidential speech I posted or not - where is Michael Moor on that one - want to tell me? Gee....... Take the time and watch your (not mine) president on the official speech I posted - here you go again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkOCI...eature=related
There is NOBODY, nobody but Bush in that speech, unless it is in the shape of a ghost.......
I'm trying to figure out why the speech is important to you for proving he lied. I don't see a lie. I see someone who acted upon what he was shown, along with the rest of the government, in the best interest of this country.

You will not convince me that Bush lied, I guess I will not convince you that he didn't. That's why this is IMO. My opinion is-he acted in what was his opinion of what was best for this Nation, and the Government agreed. My guess is that you don't realize he cannot act alone. Especially when declaring war.
Reply
post #63 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:14am
Oh, and Carolina, the link you provided is to a closed youtube account.
Reply
post #64 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:30am
He just closed it.... I watched it before posting it. here is another link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ8iMwA11TQ
Again, where is Michael Moore on this?
Reply
post #65 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
Now, because of the recession, maybe the debt would have ballooned anyway. But we if wanted to address the recession, there were better ways of implementing fiscal policy.

You have a problem with the way Obama's been spending money.

I'm not about politics, I'm about facts and numbers. My perspective is the economy. I do not support wars of hegemony, they've never worked in our favor. And the fact of the matter is, to affect our economy, the money Bush spent on the war in the Middle East could have better been spent here, and the world would still have terrorists (and probably fewer of them LOL), but it would be a far more stable place that it is now. IMO.

That's my point - everybody here is talking about a "blank check" to Obama... Really? IMHO The country wouldn't be in this mess if Bush hadn't taken this Iraq war HUGE blank check, for unfounded reasons... But people seem to forget that.... Now that Obama wants to solve a problem, it is a big, huge boo-hoo "blank check" this, blank check that, when he is trying to solve a problem that he did not create, IMHO, he inherited, to begin with.....
Reply
post #66 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
My opinion is-he acted in what was his opinion of what was best for this Nation, and the Government agreed.
Clearly, what he thought was best for the nation, worked out very well.... He left the country in the best shape ever.... NOT
Reply
post #67 of 88
8/12/11 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
I don't see a lie. I see someone who acted upon what he was shown...
Again, I refer you to this memo: http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/dsmemo.pdf

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was so thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

"The Attorney-General said the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

This clearly establishes the desire to invade Iraq and to rally public support for it before there was a reason to do it. IMO, he did it for political reasons, not in the nation's best interest. In his best interest. Not to stimulate the economy, but to detract from focus on it.

And protest because this is Wikipedia, but the information is very well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

And I've already provided the text of the speach by the IAEA to which the Wikipedia documentation of the forgeries and lies refers.
Reply
post #68 of 88
8/12/11 at 1:20pm
I was actually just questioning whether the 9/11 attack had anything to do with the Iraq war - I didn't believe it did.

Thank you Laurie and Carolina for clearing that up for me. I thought I was more confused than usual.
Reply
post #69 of 88
8/12/11 at 1:39pm
Personally, I think the Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party all need to be thrown under the bus and left to rot. It's not one party or the other when it comes to the mess the country is in, the fault lies with all of them because they are all a bunch of arrogant, elitist .
Reply
post #70 of 88
8/12/11 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Personally, I think the Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party all need to be thrown under the bus and left to rot. It's not one party or the other when it comes to the mess the country is in, the fault lies with all of them because they are all a bunch of arrogant, elitist dumb.
Now you are talking! I say the same about our politicians here in Canada. It's a matter of 6 of one, half a dozen the other.
Reply
post #71 of 88
8/13/11 at 5:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
Again, I refer you to this memo: http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/dsmemo.pdf

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was so thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

"The Attorney-General said the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."

This clearly establishes the desire to invade Iraq and to rally public support for it before there was a reason to do it. IMO, he did it for political reasons, not in the nation's best interest. In his best interest. Not to stimulate the economy, but to detract from focus on it.

And protest because this is Wikipedia, but the information is very well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

And I've already provided the text of the speach by the IAEA to which the Wikipedia documentation of the forgeries and lies refers.

LDG, Who wrote "What really happened"? In addition, wikipedia? I can add to pages on wiki as I see fit. These are not reliable either.

Like I said, I have read all the books written by Bush, Obama, Etc... Bush mans right up and says he was probably somewhat wrong, BUT, he did act in what he thought was the best interest of the nation, and the government agreed. He doesn't claim to have been completely right (even though Saddam was offering that bounty on all of our heads to anyone who wanted a Westerners, preferably American's heads) but he does claim to have acted on what he was given. (I think his genocide of his own people was enough for me) There are many things in these books that are above and beyond what the public is given. Books that are written by others to bash people (even ones I might find entertaining, bashing someone I don't like) I don't bother with. Life is short and I have no time for that stuff.

I believe him. Not blindly, but I do believe him. I tend to stay away from websites written by people who are skewed in either direction, somehow that information becomes a little "off".

I also stay away from people who admit openly to spinning facts, but have blind followers. If I say something, just about anything, a spin doctor can put it into exactly the right situation for their needs. Michael Moore is gifted in this area. But man does he have believers.
Reply
post #72 of 88
8/13/11 at 5:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Clearly, what he thought was best for the nation, worked out very well.... He left the country in the best shape ever.... NOT
Nobody has in a hundred years. I'm sure that's one of the Bushes faults.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Like someone else pointed out, Obama has doubled the debt in 2.5 years. That's quite an accomplishment. Yay Obama.
Reply
post #73 of 88
8/13/11 at 5:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I was actually just questioning whether the 9/11 attack had anything to do with the Iraq war - I didn't believe it did.

Thank you Laurie and Carolina for clearing that up for me. I thought I was more confused than usual.
When Saddam was funding many suicide attacks...adding bonuses for Americans and westerners. I tend to think he had much to do with many deaths.
Reply
post #74 of 88
8/13/11 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
When Saddam was funding many suicide attacks...adding bonuses for Americans and westerners. I tend to think he had much to do with many deaths.
I'll try it again! The attack on Iraq was not a direct result of 9/11. It was based on a belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was and is my only point. Now, you can "spin" that any way you want, but that is my ONLY point.
Reply
post #75 of 88
8/13/11 at 6:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I'll try it again! The attack on Iraq was not a direct result of 9/11. It was based on a belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was and is my only point. Now, you can "spin" that any way you want, but that is my ONLY point.
Well, you got it 50% right. While there WERE terrorists in Iraq, at least surreptitiously supported by Saddam, he wasn't directly connected to the 9/11 attacks, and the Bush administration said that repeatedly. However, he WAS in violation of his treaty agreements from the first Persian Gulf War, and that was the actual reason for military action, authorized through the UN, although the administration (including General Colin Powell, who, of all the administration, was in the best position to know if he was telling the truth or not) did trot out the "weapons of mass destruction" as an added inducement. Not surprising we were fooled about it; turns out Saddam's generals thought they had them, too.

I have no doubt that it will go down in history as one of our larger foreign affairs misstep, along with the US ambassodor's seeming to give Saddam the go-ahead for invading Kuwait.

They will likely join the long list including the Spanish/American War, WWI, WWII, and many others. History is, as much as anything, the story of missed opportunities, miscommunication, misunderstanding, and mistrust.
Reply
post #76 of 88
8/13/11 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
LDG, Who wrote "What really happened"? In addition, wikipedia? I can add to pages on wiki as I see fit. These are not reliable either.
The link on the "What really happened" website is to the text of a memo from a meeting held July 23, 2002. The meeting was between British defence and intelligence figures discussing the build-up to the war, which included direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

It also quoted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that it was clear that Bush had "made up his mind" to take military action but that "the case was thin", and the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith as warning that justifying the invasion on legal grounds would be difficult. However, the meeting took place several months before the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the resolution eventually used as the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq.

The contents of the memo were leaked to the UK press in 2005, and its authenticity has never been challenged and the authenticity of the memo was never disputed by Tony Blair's office.

I'm sorry you're not happy with the source.

Perhaps you prefer The Sunday Times of London? (Published 5/1/2005). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle387374.ece

Or The Washington Post? (5/13/2005) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051201857.html

Or the Christian Science Monitor? (5/17/2005) http://web.archive.org/web/200703101...ilyUpdate.html

As to the Wikipedia article on the forgeries of the documents indicating Hussein tried to buy uranium, I'm sorry you dismissed the article out of hand because it's Wikipedia. As I pointed out, it was well documented. The sources are:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004), "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqr...-textunder.pdf (The same document is available in parts through the government printing office if you prefer, http://www.gpoaccess.gov)

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...01777_pf.html/

The Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (2008), Memorandum "The President's Claim that Iraq Sought Uranium from Niger," http://oversight-archive.waxman.hous...1218120632.pdf

The British Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee (July 2003), "Further Supplementary Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office," Select Committee on Foreign Affairs: http://www.publications.parliament.u...13/813we35.htm

Need I post more?
Reply
post #77 of 88
8/13/11 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Well, you got it 50% right.
I'm confused by this. The being in violation of the treaty agreements from the from the first Persian Gulf War was the supposed possession of the WMD.

Here is Bush's speech before the invasion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq

If you look up UN Resolution 678 and 687, referred to in the speech, UN Resolution 678 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm) only refers to UN Resolution 660 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.htm) that condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demands their withdrawal, and

UN Resolution 687 is about WMD and ballistic missiles:

Quote:
7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
So violation of UN Resolutions, yes... but the violation of the resolutions were the supposed WMD.

Reply
post #78 of 88
8/13/11 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post


At the time of the Depression/WWII, we ran debt/GDP levels similar to those of today (higher, in fact. Roosevelt/Truman Presidency began with debt/GDP at 117.5% and ended with it at 93.1%).

But note: The debt/GDP fell not so much because of our paying down debt after the war: it fell primarily because of rising GDP. The U.S. hasn't paid down debt since 1957.

Anyone who wants to bash Obama for [CONTINUING] the spending due to the 2008 recession might want to take a look at our national debt levels INTO the Great Depression (began 1929 and lasted basically for the next decade):

U.S. National Debt from 1910: (Source: Treasury Bureau of Public Debt)
Years of debt contraction highlighted in red

1910: 2,652,665,838
1911: 2,765,600,607
1912: 2,868,373,874
1913: 2,916,204,914
1914: 2,912,499,269
1915: 3,058,136,873
1916: 3,609,244,262
1917: 5,717,770,280
1918: 14,592,161,414
1919: 27,390,970,113
1920: 25,952,456,406

1921: 23,977,450,553
1922: 23,340,707,365
1923: 22,349,707,365
1924: 21,250,812,989
1925: 20,516,193,888
1926: 19,643,216,315
1927: 18,511,906,932
1928: 17,604,293,201
1929: 16,931,088,484
1930: 16,185,309,831

1931: 16,801,281,492
1932: 19,487,002,444
1933: 22,538,672,560
1934: 27,053,141,414
1935: 28,700,892,625
1936: 33,778,543,494
1937: 36,424,613,732
1938: 37,164,740,315
1939: 40,439,532,411
1940: 42,967,531,038

1941: 48,961,443,536
1942: 72,422,445,116
1943: 136,696,090,330
1944: 201,003,387,221
1945: 258,682,187,410
1946: 269,442,099,173
1947: 258,286,383,109
1948: 252,292,246,513
1949: 252,770,359,860
1950: 257,357,352,351

1951: 255,221,976,815
1952: 259,105,178,785
1953: 266,071,061,639
1954: 271,259,599,108
1955: 274,374,222,803
1956: 272,750,813,649
1957: 270,527,171,896
1958: 276,343,217,746
1959: 284,705,907,078
1960: 286,330,760,848

1961: 288,970,938,610
1962: 298,970,938,610
1963: 305,859,632,996
1964: 311,712,899,257
1965: 317,273,898,984
1966: 319,907,087,795
1967: 326,220,937,795
1968: 347,578,406,426
1969: 353,720,253,841
1970: 370,918,706,950

1971: 398,129,744,456
1972: 427,260,460,941
1973: 458,141,605,312
1974: 475,059,815,732
1975: 533,189,000,000
1976: 620,433,000,000
1977: 698,840,000,000
1978: 771,544,000,000
1979: 826,519,000,000
1980: 907,701,000,000

1981: 997,855,000,000
1982: 1,142,034,000,000
1983: 1,377,210,000,000
1984: 1,572,266,000,000
1985: 1,823,103,000,000
1986: 2,125,302,616,658
1987: 2,350,276,890,953
1988: 2,602,337,712,041
1989: 2,857,430,960,187
1990: 3,233,313,451,777

1991: 3,665,303,351,697
1992: 4,064,620,655,522
1993: 4,411,488,883,139
1994: 4,692,749,910,013
1995: 4,973,982,900,709
1996: 5,224,810,939,136
1997: 5,413,146,011,397
1998: 5,526,193,008,898
1999: 5,656,270,901,615
2000: 5,674,178,209,887

2001: 5,807,463,412,200
2002: 6,228,235,965,597
2003: 6,783,231,062,744
2004: 7,379,052,696,330
2005: 7,932,709,661,724
2006: 8,506,973,899,215
2007: 9,007,653,372,262
2008: 10,024,724,896,912
2009: 11,909,829,003,512
2010: 13,561,623,030,892

2011E: 15,144,029,000,000


Now, absolute levels of debt are basically meaningless. What matters is debt/GDP.

Roosevelt/Truman (1945-1949) Entered with 117.5% Debt/GDP, left with 93.1%

President (Democrat/Republican) (Years in office) Beginning Debt/GDP * Ending Debt/GDP
In this table, Dems are in blue, Republicans in red

Truman (D) (1949-1953) 93.1% to 71.4%
Eisenhower (R) (1953-1961) 71.4% to 55.2%
Kennedy/Johnson (D) (1961-1965) 55.2% to 46.9%
Johnson (D) (1965-1969) 46.9% to 38.6%
Nixon (R) (1969-1973) 38.6% to 35.6%
Nixon/Ford (R) (1973-1977) 35.6% to 35.8%
Carter (D) (1977-1981) 35.8% to 32.5%
Reagan (R) (1981-1989) 32.5% to 53.1%
G.H.W. Bush (R) (1989-1993) 53.1% to 66.1%
Clinton (D) (1993-2001) 66.1% to 56.4%
G.W. Bush (R) (2001-2009) 56.4% to 83.4%
Obama (D) (2009 - ? ) 83.4% - ? Right now, approaching 100%.

So who wants to blame the democrats for this?

This debt, however, has basiclly been racked up over the past 30 years. Yes, levels of debt have consistently been rising, but really began to take off as a percent of GDP since Reagan took office.

Let's face it - our national debt has been ignored by Presidents of both parties and by Congress of both parties. It makes for great political bruhaha, but the bottom line is that we've funded our growth for the past 30 years with debt, and Reagan really began the trend (and Greenspan ran with it. ).
Awesome information Laurie!!
Reply
post #79 of 88
8/13/11 at 10:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
Nobody has in a hundred years. I'm sure that's one of the Bushes faults.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Like someone else pointed out, Obama has doubled the debt in 2.5 years. That's quite an accomplishment. Yay Obama.
I'm not sure who pointed out that Obama has doubled the debt in 2.5 years, but that is not accurate. I published the level of US debt annually from 1910 in this post: (edited to change from a link to "above" ).

Obama has increased our national debt by 23% (based on the current level of debt estimate as calculated by the Debt Clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (from the $12 trillion he inherited to $14.6T currently)

To put this in perspective,

Reagan increased our debt by 186% (1981-1989) ($997B to $2.9T)
Bush (GHW) increased our debt 54% (1989-1993) ($2.9T to $4.4T)
Clinton increased our debt 32% (1993-2001 ($4.4T to $5.8T)
Bush (GW) increased our debt 105% (2001-2009) ($5.8T to $12T)

The CBO estimate of the level of debt for 2013 (end of Obama's term) is approximately $17.5 trillion. This would represent a rise in debt of 47%.
Reply
post #80 of 88
8/13/11 at 10:38am
Thread Starter 
I assume you're talking about percentage of GDP, and not hard numbers.

So, if you're going by that standard, Bush raised it 27% in 8 years, and Obama has raised it 17% in 2 years.

So...I wonder if the Republicans win the Senate in the next election, and keep the House, if they'll be able to do for Obama what they did for Clinton, producing a long period of prosperity and actually producing a budget surplus.
Reply
post #81 of 88
8/13/11 at 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I'll try it again! The attack on Iraq was not a direct result of 9/11. It was based on a belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was and is my only point. Now, you can "spin" that any way you want, but that is my ONLY point.
I don't spin.
Reply
post #82 of 88
8/13/11 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
I assume you're talking about percentage of GDP, and not hard numbers.

So, if you're going by that standard, Bush raised it 27% in 8 years, and Obama has raised it 17% in 2 years.

So...I wonder if the Republicans win the Senate in the next election, and keep the House, if they'll be able to do for Obama what they did for Clinton, producing a long period of prosperity and actually producing a budget surplus.
The Dems and Libs will find something else to complain about. guarantee. They'll find a way to blame everything on Nixon.
Reply
post #83 of 88
8/13/11 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
I assume you're talking about percentage of GDP, and not hard numbers.
No, I wasn't talking about debt as a % of GDP above. I already posted those numbers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG
Now, absolute levels of debt are basically meaningless. What matters is debt/GDP.

Roosevelt/Truman (1945-1949) Entered with 117.5% Debt/GDP, left with 93.1%

President (Democrat/Republican) (Years in office) Beginning Debt/GDP * Ending Debt/GDP
In this table, Dems are in blue, Republicans in red

Truman (D) (1949-1953) 93.1% to 71.4%
Eisenhower (R) (1953-1961) 71.4% to 55.2%
Kennedy/Johnson (D) (1961-1965) 55.2% to 46.9%
Johnson (D) (1965-1969) 46.9% to 38.6%
Nixon (R) (1969-1973) 38.6% to 35.6%
Nixon/Ford (R) (1973-1977) 35.6% to 35.8%
Carter (D) (1977-1981) 35.8% to 32.5%
Reagan (R) (1981-1989) 32.5% to 53.1%
G.H.W. Bush (R) (1989-1993) 53.1% to 66.1%
Clinton (D) (1993-2001) 66.1% to 56.4%
G.W. Bush (R) (2001-2009) 56.4% to 83.4%
Obama (D) (2009 - ? ) 83.4% - ? Right now, approaching 100%.


So who wants to blame the democrats for this?
I agree, debt/GDP is really the only number that matters: absolute levels of debt on their own are meaningless. But Elle (resqchick) said that Obama had raised the (absolute) level of debt 200% in his first two years in office. That is wrong. So I provided the correct information: Obama has raised the absolute level of debt by 23% while in office, not 200%. This level of debt (About $14.9 trillion by fiscal year end) should roughly equal GDP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche
So...I wonder if the Republicans win the Senate in the next election, and keep the House, if they'll be able to do for Obama what they did for Clinton, producing a long period of prosperity and actually producing a budget surplus.
Yeah, a period of deregulation begun by Reagan and perpetuated by Greenspan. A period of intentionally deflating the dollar that resulted in the subsequent asset inflation we now know as "the housing bubble." Democratic/Republican hasn't mattered much the past 30 years. No matter whether D or R as President, or who controlled the House, we've been growing our GDP via debt (making massive investments in military and space technology) thanks to our monetary policy, and, IMO, Greenspan is responsible for the three decades of unprecedented growth that ultimately resulted in this trainwreck. Clinton just got lucky on the timing of his presidency; Bush and Obama unlucky. The Bushes, IMO, waged unnecessary wars to divert our attention from economic issues. Bush 1: debatable. Bush 2: killed a dying economy.
Reply
post #84 of 88
8/13/11 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqchick View Post
The Dems and Libs will find something else to complain about. guarantee. They'll find a way to blame everything on Nixon.
We certainly could discuss removing the U.S. from the gold standard and the impact of a world of fiat currencies.
Reply
post #85 of 88
8/13/11 at 2:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I'll try it again! The attack on Iraq was not a direct result of 9/11. It was based on a belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was and is my only point. Now, you can "spin" that any way you want, but that is my ONLY point.
It was based on the fact that Cheney/Bush wanted to attack Iraq and used the "weapons of mass destriction" as a convenient excuse to do it. I unfortunately don't remember where I heard it now, but someone in the inner circle supposedly came out eventually and admitted that they (Cheney) wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11 and wanted them to come up with plausible reason for doing it.
Reply
post #86 of 88
8/13/11 at 3:02pm
Apparently you didn't read the thread. I provided a link to a British memo on exactly this.

Edited to add: Ooops - sorry! Didn't read YOUR post closely enough! I've believed Bush wanted to attack Iraq to finish things his father started, but hadn't heard anything about actual discussion of it prior to 9/11 or that it was at Cheney's behest.
Reply
post #87 of 88
8/13/11 at 6:51pm
Well, here's the National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 326 titled, "The Iraq War -- Part I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001 (hosted at George Washington University): http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...1-Timeline.pdf

Misty8723, it confirms what you remember hearing.
Reply
post #88 of 88
8/13/11 at 7:04pm
Interesting - here's an exhibit of a National Security Archive, supposedly a list of talking points for Donald Rumsfeld when talking to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full scale invasion of Iraq. (Written 11/27/2001). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc08.pdf
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › What do you think of the debt crisis?