Quantcast

How many times did GOP icon Ronald Reagan raise the debt ceiling? 5, 10, 15 times? No, he raised it 17 times.

ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/07/01 02:46:15
Letter: Reagan beats all in debt limit increases



EDITOR:

During this time of intense conflict over increasing the national borrowing limit, it becomes interesting to consider the limit increases put into effect during past administrations.

During each of the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton Democrat administrations, seven or fewer increases occurred. Obama has increased the limit three times in his first administration.

The champion of all over the past 60 years? What a surprise to learn that during the conservative Ronald Reagan's administrations, the national debt limit was increased 17 times.

Ranting anti-Obama obnoxocrats Limbaugh, Hannity and Trump should take notice.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • norm 2011/07/27 20:18:58
    norm
    +3
    And all were short term increases, something that Obama refuses to do. Reagan's works out to someting like, one every six months ! Obama's increases in 21/2 years more then doubles Reagan's during eight years. What a loser the American people have elected as their president !!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • always 2011/08/05 17:35:02
  • William H Carney 2011/07/28 21:49:14
    William H Carney
    +1
    Ronald sucked. You know why the Conservatives applaud him so? That's because all the other Conservative presidents sucked. The Liberals have Lin oln, Grant, McKinley, Cleveland, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Robert Kennedy (if not killed) LBJ, Clinton, and now Obama. Yes, I know some of these men were Republicans. However, it's not what Party you belong to it's your views.
  • Moderate Man 2011/07/28 18:31:01
  • norm 2011/07/27 20:18:58
    norm
    +3
    And all were short term increases, something that Obama refuses to do. Reagan's works out to someting like, one every six months ! Obama's increases in 21/2 years more then doubles Reagan's during eight years. What a loser the American people have elected as their president !!
  • scott 2011/07/26 08:10:47
    scott
    +1
    17 CONSERVATIVE, incremental increases. Obama wants to do it in one big push to get him past the 2012 elections. He's worried more about the election than the economy.
  • harleyspoon 2011/07/15 16:52:29
    harleyspoon
    +3
    Freedom4, Almost all of Obama's first year was under the Bush budget written in 2008 and effective for FY 2009...so Obama, inaugurated on Jan 21, 2009, can only be held responsible for the budget he wrote and congress passed...but that budget included having to deal with a recession (which started in 2007..Who was President?)...By the time Obama's budget was in effect, the real debt was $12.1 trillion...It is now approx $14.3 trillion...If $14.3 trillion is three times $12.1, I'll kiss every rear end on Wall Street right where it stinks...Freedom4, where did you learn to multiply? As for Dems being under control while Bush2 was president, you got that one way wrong too! 6 of the 8 years Bush2 was president he had a Republican House and Senate...with the exception of a very short time in the Senate when Daschle was Majority Leader..Otherwise the Senate Majority Leaders of the Senate were Republican Trent Lott and Republican Bill Frist....You need to get year head our of your rectum and into some studying, Freedom4. Bust did not veto one single Republican spending bill for 6 yrs & didn't begin to veto spending bills until Dems took over.
  • William... harleys... 2011/07/28 21:41:38
    William H Carney
    +3
    You make perfect sense. In fact, your 100% right.
  • Freedom4 2011/07/10 14:19:06
    Freedom4
    +1
    I see you completely ignore that Obama racked up more in debt in his first few months in office than Reagan did his entire presidency.

    You are just another nonsensical political hack.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Freedom4 2011/07/11 00:44:38 (edited)
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    That's right, throw a red herring in there so you don't have to think.
    Obama did not triple the debt. Reagan did. Money then was worth more than now. Reagan also gave a $1 trillion stimulus to defense industry and now the defense budget is $1 trillion +
    The debt doubled under Bush. Obama has doubled NOTHING.
  • Freedom4 ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/07/11 02:44:24
    Freedom4
    Hilarious. You are the one that can't seem to think abouty or comprehend the massive difference in debt between what Obama has racked vs Reagan. Obama's deficits are tripple what Bush even had with the democrats running the house and the senate. These are the facts your are trying to avoid with your nonsensical argument.
  • ὤTṻnde΄ӂ Freedom4 2011/07/12 20:35:14
    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ
    Ellen W... below me has said exactly what I was going to say. Right on, Ellen
  • Freedom4 ὤTṻnde΄ӂ 2011/07/12 20:56:11
    Freedom4
    Below her I used facts and made her look like an idiot. I assume since you are a democrat that you are oblivious as well and completely ignore facts to support your failed ideology.
  • 38_28_38 Freedom4 2011/07/12 21:14:05
    38_28_38
    You used no "facts"

    ὤTṻnde΄ӂ used facts. I used facts. Ellen W. used facts.

    You just threw a childish tantrum like the GOP does.
  • Freedom4 38_28_38 2011/07/12 22:20:03
    Freedom4
    Pleasepoint to one thing I said or 1 of the charts that show you are full ofninsense that is not valid?
  • 38_28_38 Freedom4 2011/07/13 00:49:19
    38_28_38
    +4
    Neither writing NOR reading comprehension appear to be your forte.

    I already repudiated your GOP LIES & PROPAGANDA w/facts AND links.
  • Daryl Freedom4 2011/07/13 20:58:13
    Daryl
    you're a fool who is blinded by a pathetic agenda and can't even admit when you are wrong..
  • Freedom4 Daryl 2011/07/13 21:50:34
    Freedom4
    You are a sad and pathetic trool that looks at facts and still denies everything. As I said. Can you point out any inaccuracies in the charts that show that you all are completely full of nonsense? It is a very simple question. Lets start there instead of the name calling to avoid logic and reasoning. I know that is all you really have though.
  • Daryl Freedom4 2011/07/13 20:57:47
    Daryl
    +1
    nbo your the fool who cannot see that starting 2 wars and paying for them with tax breaks and subsidies didn't kill this countries revenue stream

    We wouldn't even be having this conversation if we never went into Iraq... let alone 2 tax breaks and subsidies to profitable corps
  • Freedom4 Daryl 2011/07/13 21:52:22
    Freedom4
    Yes, starting the wars was stupid, but you can't even pretend to explain how it caused the housing bubble and credit crisis.

    By the way, the democrats voted to send us to war as well.

    Watch these videos, they are hilarious.

    Clinton stating a case for war with Iraq in 1998. That
    was while Bush was nothing more than a Governor.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And Again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And Again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...



    John Kerry:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
    to war with Iraq




    And let not forget this wonderful comment about our
    troops:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    After he sent them there, and then stabbed them in the
    back by abandoing them.


    Al Gore:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    And again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
    to war with Iraq

    And Again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    Hilary Clinton:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://www.youtub...
























    Yes, starting the wars was stupid, but you can't even pretend to explain how it caused the housing bubble and credit crisis.

    By the way, the democrats voted to send us to war as well.

    Watch these videos, they are hilarious.

    Clinton stating a case for war with Iraq in 1998. That
    was while Bush was nothing more than a Governor.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And Again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And Again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...



    John Kerry:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
    to war with Iraq




    And let not forget this wonderful comment about our
    troops:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    After he sent them there, and then stabbed them in the
    back by abandoing them.


    Al Gore:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    And again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    And again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Boy he sure is beating up bush for not wanting to go
    to war with Iraq

    And Again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    Hilary Clinton:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    John Edwards:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    Nanci Pelosi:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...



    This video is just for good measure:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


    Do any of these people stand for anything? Really?
    (more)
  • harleys... Freedom4 2011/12/16 17:42:54
    harleyspoon
    +2
    The Republicans had control of the House and Senate for the first six (six) years of the Bush presidency, Freedom4...and that means that Bush and the Republican congress had total control of the federal budget process until Oct 1, 2007...The Dems took over congress in Jan 2007 but the government worked under a budget produced by the Republicans that took effect on Oct 2006 and was in effect until Sept 30, 2007...The Great Recession, Bubba, began in Dec 2007, long before the budget written by the Democrats for FY 2008 and signed into law by Bush, was ever in effect...Freedom4, before you make a fool of yourself again, it would be wise for you learn about the federal government's budgetary process....Oh, and don't forget that Bush didn't veto one Republican spending bill in the 6 consecutive FY's preceding the Great Recession....but he did veto almost every Democratic spending bill produced once the Dems took over congress in Jan 2007...And those vetoes that were overridden were overridden with the help of the Repubs in the House and Senate because the Dems did not have the necessary votes to override a veto in the House or the Senate!!!
  • Freedom4 harleys... 2011/12/17 00:30:04
    Freedom4
    Look, I am not a political hack. I can admit that the republicans spent like drunken sailors and I complaines about it the entire time. With that said, can you name which republican policy lead to the recession more than the democrats forcing bad loans on banks? I did not think so Can you name which bills the republicans have passed that comes close to the expenses that the entitlements the democrats put into place, which do not go away cost? I think not. It makes you look like an idiot criticizing Reagan or Bush for deficits but supporting Obama and the crrent democrats that all they do is spend and pass horrible job killing bills.
  • harleys... Freedom4 2013/08/10 02:57:41
    harleyspoon
    Dems did not force bad loans on banks...No one, not the Dems or Republicans, told banks to abandon "sound banking practices"...No one!! The Dems told banks to quit red-lining (not making loans to minorities who were credit worthy)...Most of the bad loans were made by unregulated Wall Street lenders to middle class people who, prior to the Bush Great Recession, were credit-worthy buyers...

    Even so, the Bush Prescription Drug Act is the most expensive social program in history on an annual cost basis...Bush/Delay did not see fit to ask congress to pay for the costs for prescription drugs...Not one spending bill signed by Bush was paid for and that was approved of by a Republican congress...It was all on borrowed money...

    When Bush's first budget took effect (when Clinton's last budget was no longer in effect..Sept30, 2001), the national debt was $5.6 trillion and there had been four consecutive surplus budgets.

    When Bush's last budget ended (Sept 30, 2009), the national debt was $12 trillion...

    That means Bush added $6.4 trillion to the national debt..more than doubling it! He left Obama a $trillion war in the Mideast and no way to pay for it. He left Obama an unpaid for multi-$trillion tax cut in time of war. He left Obama an unpaid for multi-$trillion Prescription Drug Act. ...
    Dems did not force bad loans on banks...No one, not the Dems or Republicans, told banks to abandon "sound banking practices"...No one!! The Dems told banks to quit red-lining (not making loans to minorities who were credit worthy)...Most of the bad loans were made by unregulated Wall Street lenders to middle class people who, prior to the Bush Great Recession, were credit-worthy buyers...

    Even so, the Bush Prescription Drug Act is the most expensive social program in history on an annual cost basis...Bush/Delay did not see fit to ask congress to pay for the costs for prescription drugs...Not one spending bill signed by Bush was paid for and that was approved of by a Republican congress...It was all on borrowed money...

    When Bush's first budget took effect (when Clinton's last budget was no longer in effect..Sept30, 2001), the national debt was $5.6 trillion and there had been four consecutive surplus budgets.

    When Bush's last budget ended (Sept 30, 2009), the national debt was $12 trillion...

    That means Bush added $6.4 trillion to the national debt..more than doubling it! He left Obama a $trillion war in the Mideast and no way to pay for it. He left Obama an unpaid for multi-$trillion tax cut in time of war. He left Obama an unpaid for multi-$trillion Prescription Drug Act. He left Obama The Bush Great Recession, a multi-$trillion reduction in federal revenues. He left Obama an unpaid for multi-$billion bail-out of AIG and TARP...The only spending Obama added to the debt was his Stimulus which kept the US from falling from a Bush Great Recession into a Bush Great Depression...and (1) the continuation of Bush's unpaid for wars, (2) Bush's unpaid for Prescription Drug Act, (3) Bush's unpaid for tax cuts in time of war and (4) Bush's bail-outs
    (more)
  • Freedom4 harleys... 2013/08/15 17:17:04
    Freedom4
    The democrats spend decades forcing down underwriting restrictions at banks. None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with the housing market or the financial sector you clown. I can see that you are too caught up in your political hackers to have a big boy conversation.
  • harleys... Freedom4 2013/08/30 14:48:47
    harleyspoon
    You are totally out of touch with reality,,,,Nothing in any legislation passed Democrats did anything to force down underwriting restrictions...The Carter legislation did away with "red lining" certain areas of cities but did not instruct, demand, require or even ask banks to abandon "sound banking or lending practices''....It only served to tell regulated lenders to give borrowers in all neighborhoods the same consideration regarding credit rating, income and ability to pay as it did to borrowers in more affluent neighborhoods...Nowhere in any of the so-called "Democratic" legislation are there any requirements to loan money to people with bad credit or inadequate income...You clown!
  • harleys... Freedom4 2013/08/30 14:52:15
    harleyspoon
    Phil Gramm's legislation to rescind Glass-Steagall was passed by a Republican controlled congress...The Republicans had majorities in the House and Senate and the Chairs of the committees of jurisdiction, Clown..Clinton signed that legislation when it was clear that his veto would have been overridden...you clown!!
  • harleys... Freedom4 2013/08/30 15:00:11
    harleyspoon
    Moreover, most of the loans that found their way into the mortgage based security instruments were loans made during the Bush Administration and those so-called "bad loans" were originally made to credit worthy borrowers by regulated lenders, not loan made in the 90's in low income neighborhoods. Unregulated lenders made almost 75% of the "bad loans: because they neither checked the borrowers income, ability to pay or credit worthiness...Bush's Great Recession had many fathers...The number one father was the lack of the Republican congressional and executive oversight over Wall Street credit rating agencies...The other father was the massive over-building of housing for the market...You, Freedom4, are a political hack clown!
  • Freedom4 harleys... 2013/08/30 20:05:51
    Freedom4
    Do you know why our economy collapsed in 2008? You can answer the question in three words: “Fannie and Freddie.” As much as Democrats want to demonize the private sector and George Bush, the fact of the matter is that Fannie and Freddie – which controlled over half of the mortgages in America – were the VERY FIRST entities to collapse and triggered the collapse of firms such as Lehman Brothers for the primary reason that Lehman suddenly found itself holding Fannie Mae-bundled mortgage backed securities that were suddenly known to be toxic. Barney Frank in 2005 brushed off a question of whether the government’s push to increase home-ownership rates might result in people buying more home than they could afford and inflating the housing market by barking, ”We’ll deal with that problem if it happens.” But we find that not only would Democrats NOT deal with it, but they wouldn’t let Bush or Republicans deal with it either.

    We find that this crisis created by Democrat policies began to build not under George Bush but under and in fact because of Bill Clinton late in his presidency:

    “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and...








































































    Do you know why our economy collapsed in 2008? You can answer the question in three words: “Fannie and Freddie.” As much as Democrats want to demonize the private sector and George Bush, the fact of the matter is that Fannie and Freddie – which controlled over half of the mortgages in America – were the VERY FIRST entities to collapse and triggered the collapse of firms such as Lehman Brothers for the primary reason that Lehman suddenly found itself holding Fannie Mae-bundled mortgage backed securities that were suddenly known to be toxic. Barney Frank in 2005 brushed off a question of whether the government’s push to increase home-ownership rates might result in people buying more home than they could afford and inflating the housing market by barking, ”We’ll deal with that problem if it happens.” But we find that not only would Democrats NOT deal with it, but they wouldn’t let Bush or Republicans deal with it either.

    We find that this crisis created by Democrat policies began to build not under George Bush but under and in fact because of Bill Clinton late in his presidency:

    “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”


    We find that this crisis created by Democrat policies began to build not under George Bush but under and in fact because of Bill Clinton late in his presidency:

    “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

    In that year 1999 you had financial experts clearly warning that this new DEMOCRAT policy was going to have a bad end:

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

    ”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

    George Bush began trying to seriously deal with the looming housing bubble which was guaranteed to create a mortgage meltdown as early as 2003:

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

    You can read how Barney Frank responded in that same article:

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

    We find that George Bush tried not once, not twice, but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to their collapse. Did you read that? SEVENTEEN TIMES.

    John McCain warned that America was on the verge of an economic meltdown created by Democrats in 2006. He said:

    Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

    And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned. And now we KNOW who would actually pay for it: YOU.

    Even the New York Times FINALLY began to be concerned over the impact of a collapse by Fannie and Freddie as these words from July 2008 document (I cited that in a piece available here):

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

    Just before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completely went belly up and started the economic wrecking ball crashing into America, Barney Frank as the powerful Democrat Chairman of the Financial Services Committee had this to say:

    REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

    I document the process by how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated here, explaining:

    [That] the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

    Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

    In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

    Here’s the process:

    The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

    Now, an intelligent observer would note a primary conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

    The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

    Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

    This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate. And then to explode. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

    And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

    We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats. And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

    And what have they done in the two years since?

    They made bad far, far worse.

    I added the last link to point out that we’re looking at a $600 TRILLION problem and Barack Obama’s supporters are COMPLETELY BEHIND that $600 trillion problem.

    You find that Barack Obama took more money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a shorter period of time than any politician in history. Fellow Democrat Chris Dodd’s money came over twenty years; Obama took all of his money from the GSEs in just three years. And Lehman Brothers and AIG that led the private sector into collapse? Yeah, Obama took more money from THEM than anybody else, too.

    If you believe the Democrat Party, the fact that Fannie and Freddie controlled over half of all the mortgages in the United States, and the fact that Fannie and Freddie went completely bankrupt and precipitated the financial crash of 2008, and the fact that economic experts predicted Fannie and Freddie would cause an economic collapse, and the fact that even the New York Times admitted concern over a “torrent of worries” caused by Fannie and Freddie’s massive exposure shortly prior to the economic collapse, all somehow go to prove that Fannie and Freddie were in no way responsible for the 2008 economic collapse. As insane as that is, that is what they have to say.

    Let me put it bluntly: if you don’t understand that Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s 2008 collapse created the financial crisis, you are a fool. If you don’t acknowledge that the Democrat Party engineered that collapse and then refused to allow George Bush or anyone else to reform these massive GSEs to prevent that collapse from happening, you are a liar. Which is why I routinely label Democrats as lying fools.

    Democrats essentially said, “We’re going to destroy America and then we’re going to use our mainstream media propagandists to blame the Republicans for what we did. The extent of the historic bias in the media is astonishing.
    (more)
  • Ellen W... Freedom4 2011/07/12 04:32:45
    Ellen Wedum
    +2
    The AMOUNT the debt has increased (compared to Reagan) is meaningless, because of inflation. (And that is what the politicians count on.) You have to compare percentages. Reagan nearly tripled the national debt, that would be a 300% increase. He started with $0.9 Trillion and increased it to $2.7 Trillion. Obama started with $10.6 Trillion, so, to MATCH Reagan, the national debt would have to increase to nearly $32 Trillion by 2016. Obama has a long way to go.... Go read up on the difference between extensive variables (hint: like weight) and intensive variables (hint: like mass).
  • Freedom4 Ellen W... 2011/07/12 11:43:28
    Freedom4
    Nonsense.in any given quarter Obama adds more debt than Reagan did in 8 years
  • Ellen W... Freedom4 2011/07/12 18:47:39 (edited)
    Ellen Wedum
    +6
    I'll try one more time to teach you some basic math, if you can't understand it, you should go back to school.

    Let's try using pumpernickel bread. It used to cost a nickel a loaf, right? Thomas Nugent in 1756 became the first writer to record the bread by this name. I found Danish pumpernickel today at $6.95 a loaf. So, without taking inflation into account, you could criticise Obama for paying such an extravagent price for a loaf of bread. 'He spends more on bread than Thomas Nugent ever did!'

    Now let's go back to the national debt. Here's a pretty good source (http://130.94.230.21/debt_hi... but it only gives the debt by year's end up to 2003. At the end of 1980 it was 930 Billion dollars. Use this as our base. End of 1981, $1.03 Trillion or a (1,030/930) x 100 = 11% increase. End of 1982, $1.20 Trillion or (1,200/930) x 100 = 29% increase. End of 1983, $1.41 T or (1,410/930) x 100 = a 52% increase. At the end of his third year in office, Reagan had increased the national debt by 52%, and not even a whimper from ANYONE.

    AND REMEMBER that President Carter had not been running up the bills before Reagan took office the way GWB did before Obama took office.

    Now we only have two full years to compare for Obama (and have to switch to a different source: http://www.trea...

    I'll try one more time to teach you some basic math, if you can't understand it, you should go back to school.

    Let's try using pumpernickel bread. It used to cost a nickel a loaf, right? Thomas Nugent in 1756 became the first writer to record the bread by this name. I found Danish pumpernickel today at $6.95 a loaf. So, without taking inflation into account, you could criticise Obama for paying such an extravagent price for a loaf of bread. 'He spends more on bread than Thomas Nugent ever did!'

    Now let's go back to the national debt. Here's a pretty good source (http://130.94.230.21/debt_hi... but it only gives the debt by year's end up to 2003. At the end of 1980 it was 930 Billion dollars. Use this as our base. End of 1981, $1.03 Trillion or a (1,030/930) x 100 = 11% increase. End of 1982, $1.20 Trillion or (1,200/930) x 100 = 29% increase. End of 1983, $1.41 T or (1,410/930) x 100 = a 52% increase. At the end of his third year in office, Reagan had increased the national debt by 52%, and not even a whimper from ANYONE.

    AND REMEMBER that President Carter had not been running up the bills before Reagan took office the way GWB did before Obama took office.

    Now we only have two full years to compare for Obama (and have to switch to a different source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov... End of 2008, $10.7 Trillion Dollars. This is our new base. End of 2009, $12.3 T or (12.3/10.7) x 100 = 15% increased (higher than Reagan). End of 2010, $14.0 T or (14.0/10.7) x 100 = 31% increased (Reagan was 29%.)

    So let us know on December 31, 2011, if the national debt has increased by 52% (just like Reagan), which would bring it up to (1.52 x $10.7 Trillion) = $16.3 Trillion. Then you can state that Obama is just as wonderful as Reagan.
    (more)
  • Freedom4 Ellen W... 2011/07/12 20:31:30
    Freedom4
    i will try to show you reality, but I bet it is pretty hard for someone such as yourself to grasp.

    reality bet pretty grasp

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C0P...

    This is a chart of our debt adjusted for inflation. It says that you are an idiot and completely wrong.

    Here is another one. it is Debt to GDP. it is a great indicator of inflation adjusted debt.

    idiot completely wrong debt gdp indicator inflation adjusted debt

    it also shows that you are an idiot that does not know what you are talking about.

    Here is a chart of deficits to GDP

    indicator inflation adjusted debt idiot talking chart deficits gdp

    Again, you are an idiot that does not know what you are talking about. See that great big increase come around Obama's term. Much bigger than Reagan huh?

    By the way, here is a math lesson for you. 29% of a very small number is far less than 31% of a huge freaking number. I thought that was pretty basic, but apparently you do not understand how percentages work.
  • Freedom4 Freedom4 2011/07/12 20:33:37
    Freedom4
    Also, lets look at where the money is going.

    (1) What do Reagan's, Obama's, and Bush's largest deficits all have in common?

    Answers: Democrat control of the house and senate.

    (2) What is the biggest part of the federal budget no matter who is president?

    Entitlements put in place by the democrats that are bankrupting the country. That is right. Is this on a level you can comprehend or do I need to use smaller words so you can sound them out?
  • 38_28_38 Freedom4 2011/07/12 21:37:50
    38_28_38
    +4
    And your GOP REPUBLICAN BAGGER BALD-FACED LIES continue -

    FACT: Our current deficit and future deficits are PRIMARILY due to the Bush tax cuts, his unfunded wars, and the economic disaster that happened on HIS watch and which Obama inherited.

    Historical facts prove that republican policies create record deficits, record debts and economic disaster.

    FY 2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
    FY 2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
    FY 2002 - 158 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2003 - 378 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2004 - 413 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2005 - 318 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2006 - 248 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2007 - 161 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress

    Source: CBO – Historical Budget Data
    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/...

    Bankrupting? Social welfare programs make up 2% of our fiscal budget.
    And they are EARNINGS - not "entitlements". People pay into SS/Medicare

    WAR is what makes up the biggest part of our budget. i expect you to bring something substantive & concrete to the table; not hyperbolic dumb-f*ckery.

    Care to try again? The bush tax cuts for the wealthy added one trillion dollars to the debt, his idiot war was another trillion, his medi care part D, a third unfunded, off ...



    And your GOP REPUBLICAN BAGGER BALD-FACED LIES continue -

    FACT: Our current deficit and future deficits are PRIMARILY due to the Bush tax cuts, his unfunded wars, and the economic disaster that happened on HIS watch and which Obama inherited.

    Historical facts prove that republican policies create record deficits, record debts and economic disaster.

    FY 2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
    FY 2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS - Clinton
    FY 2002 - 158 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2003 - 378 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2004 - 413 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2005 - 318 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2006 - 248 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress
    FY 2007 - 161 Billion Deficit - Bush/Republican congress

    Source: CBO – Historical Budget Data
    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/...

    Bankrupting? Social welfare programs make up 2% of our fiscal budget.
    And they are EARNINGS - not "entitlements". People pay into SS/Medicare

    WAR is what makes up the biggest part of our budget. i expect you to bring something substantive & concrete to the table; not hyperbolic dumb-f*ckery.

    Care to try again? The bush tax cuts for the wealthy added one trillion dollars to the debt, his idiot war was another trillion, his medi care part D, a third unfunded, off the budget trillion. Republicans are responsible for this.

    If you do not understand that you should not be allowed to vote.

    You are not smart enough!
    (more)
  • 38_28_38 38_28_38 2011/07/12 21:41:44
    38_28_38
    +3
    Bush left a record 1.3 TRILLION deficit for Obama.
    http://www.politifact.com/tru...

    On Jan. 8, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office testified before Congress that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be over $1.2 trillion.
    http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/d...

    Reagan increased our debt an average of 23% yearly...
    he TRIPLED it from 934B to 2.6T (186%)

    Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...
    he DOUBLED it from 5.7 to 10.6T (86%)

    Obama increased our debt 10% in his first year…
    from 10.6 to 12.3 trillion (to stop a great depression – DUH!)

    furthermore, Bush’s last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama’s first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion. FACT.

    Source : US Treasury Department -
    www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...

    A fair comparison of budget deficits is not the total dollar amount, but the deficit as a percentage of GDP. The CBO projects that in 2 years the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP will be about what it was when Reagan was President. So either admit Reagan was an out of control SPENDER or stop your whining about Obama.
  • Ellen W... 38_28_38 2011/07/19 23:39:50
    Ellen Wedum
    +3
    And another thing, paying the interest on the accumulated national debt is beginning to be a significant portion of the budget....
  • Freedom4 38_28_38 2011/07/13 01:54:23
    Freedom4
    FIRST OFF, THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO CUT SPENDING AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO SPEND SPEND SPEND. ALL THIS IS IS THE PATHETIC DEMOCRATS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    In 2000, the republicans made the budget and held a majority in the house and senate. This is the only time Clinton had a surplus

    Recording too your chart, when Bush took office There was $5.801 Trillion in debt. When he left There was $10Trillion. When the democrats took over the house and the senate in 2007, The debt was $8.5 Trillion. The Current Debt under Obama is $14.3 Trillion and he is looking to raise the ceiling.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov...

    In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.




    Entitlements as a % of the federal Budget:

    Social Security: 19.63%
    unemployment welfare: 16.13%
    medicare: 12.79%
    Medicaid and SChip: 9.19%
    HHS: 2.22%
    HUD: 1.4%
    Education: 4.63%
    Social Security Administration: 2.97%
    This does not include all of the other entitlements imbedded into the other programs.

    Total: 68.96% of the federal b...

    FIRST OFF, THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO CUT SPENDING AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO SPEND SPEND SPEND. ALL THIS IS IS THE PATHETIC DEMOCRATS TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    In 2000, the republicans made the budget and held a majority in the house and senate. This is the only time Clinton had a surplus

    Recording too your chart, when Bush took office There was $5.801 Trillion in debt. When he left There was $10Trillion. When the democrats took over the house and the senate in 2007, The debt was $8.5 Trillion. The Current Debt under Obama is $14.3 Trillion and he is looking to raise the ceiling.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov...

    In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.


    national debt public amassed presidents george washington ronald reagan

    Entitlements as a % of the federal Budget:

    Social Security: 19.63%
    unemployment welfare: 16.13%
    medicare: 12.79%
    Medicaid and SChip: 9.19%
    HHS: 2.22%
    HUD: 1.4%
    Education: 4.63%
    Social Security Administration: 2.97%
    This does not include all of the other entitlements imbedded into the other programs.

    Total: 68.96% of the federal budget.

    more went out in entitlements alone than came in in all tax revenues last year. MOST OF THESE GO TO PERFECTLY ABLE BODIED PEOPLE THAT COULD TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
    (more)
  • Ellen W... Freedom4 2011/07/19 23:41:00
    Ellen Wedum
    +2
    They are only trying to cut spending NOW because it is a Democrat doing the spending, not a Republican.
  • Freedom4 Ellen W... 2011/07/20 02:19:55
    Freedom4
    Ha ha, are you feeling guilty? Is that why you accuse me of exactly what you are doing? Here you are criticizing Reagan for a freaking fraction of the spending of Obama yet you support Obama. Pathetic really.
  • harleys... Ellen W... 2013/08/30 17:11:00
    harleyspoon
    Obama had proposed less in spending to pay for his proposals than any president is modern times...

    Obama Is A Small Spender

    Obama kept the Bush bailouts. Both Romney and Ryan asked for stimulus money. Obama even set up policies to prevent future bail outs.

    Today, not only is the TeaPub party saying, "We hate the bail out" they are trying to take away the preventative measures taken to insure there will be no more bailouts!

    Obama's spending has grown slower than federal spending since the 50's. Lets look at "Growth" spending and the top spenders. ;

    Reagan-8.7 growth
    Bush2 (2nd Term)-8.1 growth
    Bush2 (1st Term)- 7.3 growth
    HW. Bush-5.4 growth
    Obama-1.4 growth
  • Mary Va... Freedom4 2011/08/09 01:35:04
    Mary Vaughn
    +4
    Excuse me but that 19.63% you have up there as though it was an amount that SS added to the debt is completly misleading and an outright lie. SS has 2.6 trillion in Treasury Bonds and is good until the year 2036 without any changes. I am not asking the government to give me money I am asking them to allow me to draw money from the insurance OASDI that I paid into for 52 years. I do not know about those other things that you have mentioned but I intend to check on the real costs of medicare. You really need to take 2.6 trillion out of that equasion and see what the real costs are.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/23 18:11:03

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals