According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
http://eteraz.org/2007/08/14/us-comptroller-slams-us-economic-inequity/



Ouch, so who's the big spending communist marxist now? The numbers speak for themselves

Is he borrowing money to pay off the debts of the previous presidents?

No, Orleander. That will be left to the Democrats. You know, "tax and spend". It takes tax revenues to pay toward our debt, and this is a tactic that seems to work in American politics. The GOP creates a problem, and then complains rabidly when the Democrats try to fix it. Anyone remember the big argument after the Clinton administration achieved a surplus? The GOP wanted to refund the money to taxpayers. Sounds good, except that the budget surplus should have gone toward the debt, and, as we see now, spending some of that surplus on infrastructure would not have been a bad idea.

Consider two stereotypes in a single simile--"Americans think with their wallets like men think with their dicks"--and it's easy to see why the GOP appeal to emotion and interest works.

The thought of spending a trillion borrowed dollars on the American people in general is abhorrent to many voters. But, for some reason, spending a trillion borrowed dollars starting a war to enrich the privileged class in this country is a patriotic duty.

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.


In 1910, the cost for a gallon of gas was only $0.07. You forgot to factor inflation. That's over 4000% increase in gas prices! Now, we can't go by that percentage, but it does paint a picture that in the last 100 years there has been some major inflation. $1 trillion dollars is a lot less in 1776-1910.

What you need to do is calculate the average debt increase for the past presidents as a percentage in their respective time periods/economies (that way you don't have to worry so much about inflation, thereby removing a variable).

Then, you can compare the percentage you come up with, to Bush's percentage increase over the past 4 years.

I am not about to do this research and calculation, but a ball park figure is that Bush borrowed about 1/40th the amount of all the presidents combined.

So, each persident probably contributed an equal share of the debt, on average, based on the inflation of patroleum.

Again, this is a estimation is way off, but at least it is in the ballpark.

o, each persident probably contributed an equal share of the debt, on average, based on the inflation of patroleum.

Again, this is a estimation is way off, but at least it is in the ballpark.


This has nothing to do with Patroleum. And Clinton left us a surplus. So that obliterates your argument right there.

Is he borrowing money to pay off the debts of the previous presidents?

If he is, he needs to pay off his own debts first. His administration lost, I repeat, lost 13 billion dollars cash in Iraq in addition to 500,000 ak57's.

How does one loose, 13 billion dollars cash?

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70546&highlight=washer

Cash??? Just 'poof!'...gone? Got a link to that story??
I wonder how much jet/ship fuel has been used since 9/11. That has to cost a pretty penny.

Is he borrowing money to pay off the debts of the previous presidents?

Wrong, the previous president balanced the budget and left him with a surplus of 127 billion.

The numbers speak for themselves
maybe, maybe not.
isn't this about the same as the number of people now alive equaling something like the last 50 years or so?

Orleander, here is a link referencing the missing billions:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
http://eteraz.org/2007/08/14/us-comptroller-slams-us-economic-inequity/



Excuse my ignorance. But does anyone know which country has the highest surplus. Perhaps I'll move there. Taxes have got to be pretty low . . .

Orleander, here is a link referencing the missing billions:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

OH! I thought it was 9 billion in cash just vanished. Thanks joe.
Here is an example of why so much money is gone. Greedy Americans. :mad:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70546&highlight=washer

Don't forget about Rumsfeld missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars unaccounted for..

- N

inflation?

This has nothing to do with Patroleum. And Clinton left us a surplus. So that obliterates your argument right there.

Look, I don't particularly like Bush, but your argument is flawed.

We're not talking about Clinton, your argument states that all previous presidents combined debt increase is equal to the current president's.

You CAN compare Clinton and Bush because we're dealing with roughly the same economy, but then the numbers are just not as dramatic....

Bush did increase it alot!

We're not talking about Patroleum, I just used it as an example. A piece of the economy out of 1910 context.

I'm talking about inflation and your evidence is apples and oranges.

The other presidents spent 1 trillion in the past, which is equivlent to roughly over 41 trillion today! So you are saying that 41 trillion = 1 trillion. Illogical!

Two completely different economies. EVERTHING was cheaper before 1910. 3 dollars today equals .07 cents in 1910. !

You need to do the math and understand elementary economics and inflation.

Thats why, if you remove inflation from the equation by either taking say the past 4 presidents combined compared to Bush (or extracting a percentage based on the differnent economies), you can paint us a more accurate picture...but, I promise it is far less dramatic.

Compare the last 4 presidents combined borrowing with Bush's. Probably looks real bad for Bush in that context, but it actually looks about average if we are talking about the combined total debt. So, your original statement is pro Bush and you are trying to make it the opposite. It doesn't stick because the economies were so vastly different pre 1910 compared to today.

So, each persident probably contributed an equal share of the debt, on average, based on the inflation of patroleum.

Again, this is a estimation is way off, but at least it is in the ballpark.


There was no national debt until the Vietnam war, started by Kennedy, The democratic party funded that war effort and put the US in debt for the very first time. It has been going into debt for years since then and only Clinton get a grip on it somewhat. That was with a Republican Congress.

Don't forget about Rumsfeld missing 2.3 TRILLION dollars unaccounted for..

- N

Trillion??!

The estimated population of the United States is 302,760,536
so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,648.84.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.45 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Concerned?



Faced with a potential government shutdown, the Senate votes to raise the nation's debt limit for the fourth time in five years. The bill passed by a 52-48 vote, increasing the ceiling to $9 trillion. The bill now goes to the president.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521

Oleander, what's a few billion dollar difference between friends? That article did not include some other stuff.

President Bush doesn't care about the nation. He got the western world into a war that will guarantee increased spending in military and security costs , and where will the money go to ? the Carlyle Group, of which his dad works for.
As well as Enron and all the energy giants profiting at least for the next TEN years from the globally increase average mean oil prices. People may be celebrating that he's gonna be booted out in 08, but he's celebrating because he just made a SHIT LOAD of money.

there are no worst or best presidents. All are equal in perspectives.

hmm ? , maybe you could compare their death tolls.

hmm ? , maybe you could compare their death tolls.

...guess what past generations have been saying about their presidents

President Bush doesn't care about the nation. He got the western world into a war that will guarantee increased spending in military and security costs. ....

HE didn't do it. WE did it. Lots of Americans supported the war. We thought we were gonna go to that backwards little country and kick the same ass we kicked during Kuwait. A few days and we'd be done.
Our arrogance is why we are over there.

HE didn't do it. WE did it. Lots of Americans supported the war. We thought we were gonna go to that backwards little country and kick the same ass we kicked during Kuwait. A few days and we'd be done.
Our arrogance is why we are over there.

Yeah, well, certain people are profiting over your arrogance, so therefore your own companies are reaping the profits of your arrogance, while your people pay the price with their blood, sweat and tears .

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
http://eteraz.org/2007/08/14/us-comptroller-slams-us-economic-inequity/



Ouch, so who's the big spending communist marxist now? The numbers speak for themselves

US GDP is nearing 14 trillion annually, and despite this months recent doom and gloom in the housing market (which waxes and wanes every decade or so) is still growing between 3-4% per quarter.

Interestingly enough, each time the US economy has run into trouble, it has emerged bigger and stronger from the smouldering ashes.

HE didn't do it. WE did it. Lots of Americans supported the war. We thought we were gonna go to that backwards little country and kick the same ass we kicked during Kuwait. A few days and we'd be done.
Our arrogance is why we are over there.

I think we need to add to that Incompetence. Why didn't we utilized knoweldge from previous wars? Why didn't we heed the words Cheney himself voiced a decade a go on the issue? Why did we not secure the weapons depots...allowing insurgents and others to accumulate their own private weapons depots? Why did we disband the army and police forces? Why did we tell those that knew how things work to take a hike and stand around and twittle our thumbs while the Iraqi citizens had no water, no electricity, no gasoline, no food and no jobs. Last I checked my history books that was a sure fire plan for trouble.