Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(111,251 posts)
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:37 PM Jan 2012

How the Republicans tore down our country

We don't have to go back very far. Only to about the 1980's.

It was at that time that they decided government was evil. Never before had they been so bold at stating their long held belief about government.

They took simple economic theories printed on napkins and made them a national policy. Their aim was to destroy the beast called "big government" by starving it to death. If there were no taxes, they would have nothing with which to feed the beast.

So they deliberately lied. They told the people that they could cut taxes and it would bring in more money to the Treasury. Simply because, businesses would have more money to expand and create jobs, thus bringing in more tax revenues. But, unfortunately, it did not work that way. They created huge debt and deficits, unlike any we had ever seen in history.

However, America did get sort of a reprieve in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. He was lucky to come in at a time when technology and computers were revolutionizing the American economy. By the end of his second term, he was able to balance the budget and forecast a surplus far into the future, without using SS funds to fund the government. Of course, the Republicans jumped on the bandwagon. They were partners in balancing the budget they argued. Of course, every single Republican voted against the Clinton economic plan in 1993 and said that it would create a terrible economy. Once again, they were able to lie themselves out of a hole.

But they were desperate. This money belonged to the people, not to the government, Bush argued in the 2000 campaign. They had to take back the government by hook or crook. They ended up taking back power by crook and decided to double down on the voodoo economics that had failed so terribly in the 1980's. Not only that, they would get rid of every regulation possible to make it easier for business to make their fortunes without the yoke of "big government". They had already reformed welfare under Clinton, before they impeached him. So they were well on their way to destroying the "beast" of big government.

Every conscious American knows what happened under George W Bush and the Republicans, who were in control of everything for 6 years. Terrorism, wars, pestilence, lies, and neglect of our Constitution, torture, rendition, etc. We all know what happened, even if some prefer to continue in denial. The Democrats were weak and helpless during this time. They offered little resistance.

Then, when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, many thought there was hope to turn everything around. Unfortunately, the mess created was so deep and destructive, and the willpower so weak and timid, that we were unable to make the progress that the country needed. We made some progress but it was minute compared to the need. The Republicans fought every effort to make the changes necessary.

So, there you have it. A short history of how the Republicans tore down our country and are looking for an opportunity to finish the job. America was such a great country with such hope and opportunity. The people bought the lies and were not vigilant and they lost it.

57 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the Republicans tore down our country (Original Post) kentuck Jan 2012 OP
I take objection NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #1
Then Maybe Dwight D. was onto something since tax rates for top tier incomes were 91% whathehell Jan 2012 #2
Wow NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #14
Don't worry...They had plenty of accountants and loopholes whathehell Jan 2012 #19
Ok NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #31
In Republican terms "getting real" means "uber-rich pay no taxes at ALL" whathehell Jan 2012 #34
I agree NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #46
9% of your income *over a certain amount*. HughBeaumont Jan 2012 #36
It's marginal income... WCGreen Jan 2012 #44
I'm sorry but... kentuck Jan 2012 #3
But all is rosy now....(for the top 1%) izquierdista Jan 2012 #5
You got it! kentuck Jan 2012 #7
That's only true if your ignore Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #13
Errr... NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #18
It was "headed downward" because of stupid decisions made by Wall Street and whathehell Jan 2012 #35
your mortgage is not analogous to intra-government debt unblock Jan 2012 #4
if the gov't (outside socsec) runs a surplus, but socsec runs a bigger one, then total debt goes up. unblock Jan 2012 #10
There is no trust fund NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #17
Nice RW talking point there hootinholler Jan 2012 #22
yeah... NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #28
Whatever you call it, we the people PAID for it. In fact, the Baby Boomers paid DOUBLE whathehell Jan 2012 #37
I didn't... NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #45
Sounds like whathehell Jan 2012 #50
It's not a talking point NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #53
Maybe not, but you certainly sound like a republican whathehell Jan 2012 #54
Indeed. Sometimes I think some people want to bury the trust fund in a back yard somewhere rather pampango Jan 2012 #33
you can't have it both ways. unblock Jan 2012 #25
What? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #27
you are counting them as a liability but not as an asset. that is a complete fraud. unblock Jan 2012 #32
It's a liability NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #42
ok, let's break it down: unblock Jan 2012 #47
there's a problem NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #49
here's one source: unblock Jan 2012 #52
Fuck the national debt...Reagan raised the debt limit something like twenty plus times, in 8 years. whathehell Jan 2012 #38
Yeah, I'm sure you do. tabasco Jan 2012 #12
The Congressional Budget Office NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #16
So which is it? hootinholler Jan 2012 #23
Sorry NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #30
You must be kidding.. whathehell Jan 2012 #40
Huh? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #41
Huh? whathehell Jan 2012 #51
Objection overruled. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #20
Riddle me this NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #43
Why are you spreading lies? tabasco Jan 2012 #56
Yes, I remember in the 80's when those repuke presidents were cutting taxes hughee99 Jan 2012 #6
Is this an attempt to be facetious or sarcastic? kentuck Jan 2012 #8
Not an attempt, I think it was a success. hughee99 Jan 2012 #9
I can't disagree with that... kentuck Jan 2012 #11
"...finish the job" is proven in how the house under GOP simply picked up where they left off. They deacon Jan 2012 #15
The Republicans are backed by big money and big business and big media.. DCBob Jan 2012 #21
I disagree. They have only just started tryiny to break up the country. L. Coyote Jan 2012 #24
they still think govt is evil unless it has to do with governing women's reproductive rights spanone Jan 2012 #26
They don't think it's "evil" when it works for the One Percent...When it works for the rest of us whathehell Jan 2012 #39
There are some on DU that bash Obama and democrats as much as possible. bluestate10 Jan 2012 #29
i wonder the same thing upi402 Jan 2012 #57
Good history YoungDemCA Jan 2012 #48
they had no opposition upi402 Jan 2012 #55


(78 posts)
1. I take objection
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:47 PM
Jan 2012

I take objection to the phrase "Clinton balanced the budget." True, we didn't have massive deficits for a few years but at no time did he ever balance the federal budget. They played games and only considered public debt reduction, but at the same time ignored the growth in intra-government debt.

Clinton never reduced our national debt, it has increased EVERY year, under EVERY administration since Dwight David Eisenhower in 1958.

Balancing a budget is pretty easy when you're allowed to pretend that certain bills don't exist. I can hide my mortgage payment under my desk blotter, and make it look like I'm rolling in cash this month if I want.


(29,171 posts)
2. Then Maybe Dwight D. was onto something since tax rates for top tier incomes were 91%
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:10 PM
Jan 2012

Druing his administration, so maybe we can go back to that

so we can "balance the budget". I'm game.


(78 posts)
14. Wow
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:54 AM
Jan 2012

91%? Holy cow...I mean, I'm not going to really throw myself on my sword for the ultra wealthy...but to keep only 9% of your income...ouch.


(29,171 posts)
19. Don't worry...They had plenty of accountants and loopholes
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 05:46 AM
Jan 2012

so they never had to pay that much in reality.


(78 posts)
31. Ok
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:42 PM
Jan 2012

That just seems insane...Maybe if they'd get real with the tax rates people wouldn't be so fast to buy loopholes with their influence.


(29,171 posts)
34. In Republican terms "getting real" means "uber-rich pay no taxes at ALL"
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 09:48 AM
Jan 2012

and that's what's insane.

They currently pay the LOWEST tax rate of any country in the Western world,

so they're NOT going to do better anywhere else.

They need to stop being greedy fucks and pay their share, like everyone else.


(78 posts)
46. I agree
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:10 PM
Jan 2012

It's BS that people who can afford personal accountants can dodge paying their share of anything, while the guy burning himself out working 100 hours a week in an office is paying 40%.

The tax code is horribly long and complicated...they need to go at it with a chainsaw and simplify the damn thing.


(24,461 posts)
36. 9% of your income *over a certain amount*.
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:00 AM
Jan 2012

Marginal vs effective.

Trust me, the rich still made out like bandits back then.

It's just that now, with their ultra-low tax rates (mostly 15% from capital gains/dividends), they make out like high-tech jewel thieves.


(111,251 posts)
3. I'm sorry but...
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:10 PM
Jan 2012

The budget was balanced. They actually paid down some of the national debt and they did not have to use Social Security to balance the budget.

In fact, a surplus was forecast for the next 10 years. We would have paid off the entire national debt by 2011. But most knowledgeable people know what happened and why the economy went into the crapper...

(on edit: here is a link that might help from Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/



(11,689 posts)
5. But all is rosy now....(for the top 1%)
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:36 PM
Jan 2012

For had the entire national debt been paid off by 2011, who would have to jump when the bond vigilantes of Wall Street snap their fingers?


(111,251 posts)
7. You got it!
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:38 PM
Jan 2012

The truth will set you free. If people would only tear themselves away from Rush and Hannity and FOX News and do a little reading and research...



(397 posts)
13. That's only true if your ignore
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:26 AM
Jan 2012

the debt the gov't owes to itself (Social Security, etc). In that case, the debt is "only" about $8T. If you look at the real debt, there has not been a year in the past 30 when the debt did not rise.



(78 posts)
18. Errr...
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:14 AM
Jan 2012

No, the debt never went down. Not a single year in my lifetime.

Now...I think a whoooole lot of blame should get dumped on Bush II, but the economy was probably headed downward either way.


(29,171 posts)
35. It was "headed downward" because of stupid decisions made by Wall Street and
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:00 AM
Jan 2012

the toadies who carry water for them.

One huge one was getting rid of the Glass-Steagal Act, which

which was put in place SEVENTY years ago by FDR after the Great Depression.

It kept this country OUT of the kind of depression we're seeing

but the Banksters couldn't tolerate ANY restraints,

so they rammed through Glass -Steagal and brought the whole country down.


(52,875 posts)
10. if the gov't (outside socsec) runs a surplus, but socsec runs a bigger one, then total debt goes up.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:05 PM
Jan 2012

the social security surplus goes into u.s. treasuries, which is intra-government debt.

so in the years under clinton in which we ran a surplus, by which i mean the federal government (outside of social security) spent less than it took in, that extra money was available to reduce the federal debt.

meanwhile, social security ran a surplus, taking in more than it paid out. the extra was invested in treasuries, which increased the federal debt.

so what's going on here? how is it possible that both parts of the government take in more than they spend and yet total debt increases? essentially only because we're counting the intra-government debt (i.e., treasuries) that social security is holding. in effect, this makes it sound bad only by ignoring the money "saved" by social security.

in short, you're counting the intra-government debt as a liability but ignoring the same intra-government debt as an asset.
that is, if you want to say that clinton didn't run a surplus because total debt actually increased, you have to give clinton credit for a big build up to the social security trust fund.


(78 posts)
17. There is no trust fund
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:12 AM
Jan 2012

There is not a single dollar saved for social security. There is no trust fund, they misuse that term intentionally.

The trust fund is nothing more than a pile of IOU's


(26,449 posts)
22. Nice RW talking point there
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:16 AM
Jan 2012

That pile of IOUs are T-Bills backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

Of course the Republicans want to waive them to 'balance' the budget.


(78 posts)
28. yeah...
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:32 PM
Jan 2012

And regardless of their relative safety, they are still a pile of debt our government owes, and yet they consider it a "trust fund."

In my opinion...a fund is something with funds that you build...a pile of IOU's shouldn't be considered a fund.

It's an arguement in semantics...but I've found that very few people know our government merely takes our SS payments and spends them, giving us an IOU. When they use the term trust fund, it implies that we are saving this money.


(29,171 posts)
37. Whatever you call it, we the people PAID for it. In fact, the Baby Boomers paid DOUBLE
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:12 AM
Jan 2012

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

due to a law passed in the early eighties to shore up

the anticipated "shorfall" anticpated for all the Boomers

going into retirement at about the same time.

Because of that law we payed for both OUR retirement AND our parents retirment,

so If you think we're going to let these fucks screw us out of PAYING IT BACK,

you have NO clue....We're the generation that brought down the Vietnam war

through protest and committment; If you think we're going to let them steal our money,

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.


(78 posts)
45. I didn't...
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:07 PM
Jan 2012

I didn't suggest that you aren't owed, don't deserve, or won't get that money. I hope you get every bit you have coming to you, honestly.

We have to begin looking at it that way though, as money owed to people like yourselves. We can't continue to ignore this growing liability with no plan as to how to pay for it. Certainly any sane person will know that the way to pay for it is never to just say scrape off those people who ran this country.

I'm 33 right now, and I've known since I was a child that I wasn't going to be able to rely on SS to sustain me in retirement. I've never even considered it in my future plans, because I know that by the time I get close the retirement age will be about 85.

That's probably how they'll eventually dig out, just keep raising the age as people live longer. I think when they set the age at 65, most people lived to be about 62. Most people my age will probably see 80 or more.

I never suggested taking SS benefits from anyone who's paid into it their whole life...that would be fundamentally unfair.


(29,171 posts)
50. Sounds like
Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:48 AM
Jan 2012

you've bought into a lot of Republican talking points about Social Security and that

younger people would be "better" off getting rid of it eventually.

Tell me -- What would you put in it's place?....The stock market?....That, IMO, would be very foolish...Just think where today's

retirees and those close to retirement would be NOW, had they bought that idea when Bush proposed it a few years ago -- ALL of their

money would be gone....As it is, our accounts are secure.

You claim "I've known since I was a child" that you werent' going to be able to "rely on SS to sustain you in retirment".

I'm curious -- beyond the fact that no one who IS ABLE to save for retirment, should rely completely on SS, tell me -- What made

you "know"? I've heard this strange "certainty" about it from many around your age and I'm always puzzled by it.

The fact is, you and your generation WILL have it if you support it and WANT it.....What would you prefer?...Paul

Ryan's "voucher plan"? ....The Stock Market?

In addition, the idea that "people are living longer now", than when SS started, is a myth.

I'm not a math or stat wizard, but that erroneous assumption was explained away by Thom Hartmann, among

others. As he said, because there are more PEOPLE now living past infancy, (The infant mortality rate has declined steeply)

as wll as those who can survive infectious diseases due to the discovery of penicillin

there are simply MORE People living on into adulthood, but that doesn't mean that

those who live to the age of sixty are living LONGER than people of other generations who got

to that age. My grandmother, who was your age in the Thirties when Social Security was new,

lived to be eighty seven...HER parents, who were over sixty at that time, lived into their Nineties,

and their life spans were not especially exceptional.


(78 posts)
53. It's not a talking point
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:06 PM
Jan 2012

It's just an assumption that I won't be able to rely on SS. It might be a check that I can get once a month, but I'm not going to depend on that check to buy everything I'll need in retirement. I grew up with a lot of senior citizens in my neighborhood, and knew the people who were surviving on SS alone, and I know I don't want to live like that when I'm older. It's just clever planning, and if I get there and there's a check for me, then it'll just be just gravy.

What would I like in place of it? I don't know, perhaps nothing? Maybe I'm an exception to the rule, but I would happily opt out of the system if I can stop paying into it today. Whatever I've paid to this point, I'd consider it a gift. I think it would be a monumental mistake to replace SS with some kind of government sponsored investment plan...because it would quickly drive an unnatural amount of money into the market and create a bubble.


(29,171 posts)
54. Maybe not, but you certainly sound like a republican
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:35 PM
Jan 2012

Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2012, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

"What would I like in place of it?..I don't know, perhaps nothing"?

Fine..but most people do not feel as you do.

Social Security and Medicare are THE most popular

government program in the nation...Something like 70 to 80%

of Americans ACROSS POLITICAL lines support both

and want to maintain them.

I believe you have NO idea how bad things were for the elderly

before the implementation of Social Security.

As to personal savings accounts, sure..As I said earlier, it's great if you CAN

save for your retirement,

but it doesn't work out for everyone, especially since wages

have been stagnating for the almost twenty five years.

Ayn Rand didn't think much of social security until, it turns out,

her life plan didn't work out as well as she imagined,

and she found herself old and in need.

Guess what?...She bagged her "beliefs" and took it!


(24,692 posts)
33. Indeed. Sometimes I think some people want to bury the trust fund in a back yard somewhere rather
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 06:53 AM
Jan 2012

than invest it (by law) in the safest investment, T-Bills. If someone knows of a safer investment than T-Bills or a safer place to put the "trust fund", they should make that secret public so we can pressure congress to move it there.


(52,875 posts)
25. you can't have it both ways.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:38 AM
Jan 2012

there are two ways of looking at it, either is fine.
but you can't take the worst of both views and leave out the best of both views.

if the trust fund is nothing but a pile of worthless iou's, then you can't count those same iou's as part of government's debt.
if you want to claim that clinton never ran a surplus, the only way that adds up is if you say that those iou's really mean something.


(78 posts)
27. What?
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:29 PM
Jan 2012

I never said the word worthless. I never impied that they were worthless. I said it was a pile of IOU's, that is not an incorrect statement.

Those IOU's mean something, they mean the government owes someone some money, which is not an asset but a liability.

Clinton never reduced our national debt...I'm sounding like a broken record here. We owed more money every year he was in office. That is called running a deficit, which is exactly the opposite than running a surplus.


(52,875 posts)
32. you are counting them as a liability but not as an asset. that is a complete fraud.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:24 PM
Jan 2012

if the government owes more money to some entity OUTSIDE the government, then yes, it owes money, and it is correct to count it as a liability because it is an asset on someone else's books.

but in this case the government owes the money to itself. you can't count that as a liability but ignore it as an asset.

you either ignore it entirely or you count it as both.

you can't look at one side of a coin and pretend the other side doesn't exist.


(78 posts)
42. It's a liability
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:52 PM
Jan 2012

The government doesn't owe the money to itself, they owe it to their citizens. It isn't an asset, it's a liability, and I truly don't understand how you can see it any other way.

The SS takes in more money than they send out, but none of that money is actually saved. It goes into the general fund and IOU's are issued in their place. The money is spent, and the debt stays, and I should count that debt as an asset?

So by your logic, the Social Security dept. somehow multiplies their revenue by 2, because it's spent once in the general fund and then also gets turned into savings.

Does that really make sense?


(52,875 posts)
47. ok, let's break it down:
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:29 PM
Jan 2012

i'm obviously not using the real numbers for simplicity, but the illustration should clarify:

social security runs a surplus, say:
income +$8
expenses -$5

the federal budget outside of social security runs a surplus as well, though smaller than the social security surplus, say:
income +$16
expenses -$15

so far, so good. the federal government took in a grand total surplus of +4$4.
nothing complicated or debatable about it, really.

so where does the confusing complication come in?
social security, by law, doesn't sit on its $3 surplus, it trades that cash for treasuries.
now, this is really just a wash, like me handing over some cash to mrs. unblock with her promising to pay me back the next day. our household is neither richer nor poorer. yes, i have an iou instead of cash, but my wife, who is part of the household, has cash instead of the iou. in the aggregate, it's a non-event.

but if you count it only as a liability, you can say it's a -$3 liability that treasury owes to social security, and then looking ONLY at the federal budget outside of social security, then say that +$1 surplus turns into a -$2 deficit because of the $3 of additional debt it issued to social security. but again, that ignores everything else about the exchange with social security; it's not only a liability with no flip side it's also an asset for social security. social security still had just a $3 surplus, it's just now in the form of treasuries rather than dollars; and the treasury still ran a surplus of $1 ignoring social security. then it raised an further $3 cash through the issuance of treasuries to social security. so on top of the $1 cash surplus, it's also +$3 cash and -$3 treasuries. so, still up an net +$1.


(78 posts)
49. there's a problem
Thu Jan 19, 2012, 12:59 AM
Jan 2012

In your analogy, your wife hangs onto the money. In real life, the government doesn't hold onto that money when they trade it, they spend it in the general fund.

Part of the government's revenue, which they account for in those numbers, comes from revenue from social security.

The revenue is already accounted for in the budget, unless you'd like you count it twice.

When you account for all of the money taken in and spent, rather than picking and choosing which bills to count, you get eithen an increase or decrease in the national debt.

Which year did the national debt go down?


(52,875 posts)
52. here's one source:
Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:30 PM
Jan 2012

scroll down to the chart entitled "national debt corrected for inflation (2000 dollars)".
the national debt decreased in the 2 years ending september 2000 and 2001.

looks like he's actually including government-held debt; merely adjusting for inflation shows a surplus.
looking at public debt only would be even better.


(29,171 posts)
38. Fuck the national debt...Reagan raised the debt limit something like twenty plus times, in 8 years.
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:24 AM
Jan 2012

Nobody cared then. .

The only reason Republicans supposedly care "now"

is that they want to use it as an excuse to cut social

programs, like public school funding, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

which are hugely popular across party lines.

Something like EIGHTY Percent

of Americans do not want want Medicare (not to mention SS, which is not

PART of the debt anyway) TOUCHED.

We'll have few "debt" problems when the Republican

Leadership stops shilling for Uber-rich and starts,

MAKING them pay their fair share of the tax burden.


(78 posts)
16. The Congressional Budget Office
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:10 AM
Jan 2012

Here are your numbers Sparky...

National debt by fiscal year
1993 - 4.41 trillion
1994 - 4.69 trillion
1995 - 4.97 trillion
1996 - 5.22 trillion
1997 - 5.41 trillion
1998 - 5.52 trillion
1999 - 5.65 trillion
2000 - 5.67 trillion
2001 - 5.80 trillion

When you balance a budget or run a surplus, your debt goes down. When you run a deficit, your debt goes up. The debt has gone up every year since 1958.

You can get a surplus when you are allowed to ignore some of your debts...like I said, the Congressional Budget Office is doing so.

Again, Clinton never ran a surplus.


(26,449 posts)
23. So which is it?
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:24 AM
Jan 2012

Is the CBO ignoring the debts or is the CBO publishing the numbers you present?

This would be clearer if you linked to the CBO information you got that list of numbers from. We are rather fond of linking to the source of information around here.


(78 posts)
30. Sorry
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:39 PM
Jan 2012

I'm pretty sure it was simply the wikipedia.org article on the national debt...those numbers are not in dispute...those are the numbers.

The CBO published those numbers, but when they report that we ran a surplus during the Clinton years, they are only giving you half of that number.

The public debt went down for a few years, but the public debt is only a part of the actual national debt. So, if you are only accounting for the public debt, you could say that we ran a surplus. It's congress' way of saying "look how good we did, we balanced the checkbook!"

Unfortunately, the surplus in our public debt was far overshadowed every year by the growth of the intragovernment debt.

It's perhaps splitting hairs...but the majority of people think that our national debt went down under Clinton (go ahead, ask) and that is absolutely untrue. They think that because of the "Clinton surplus" that everyone talks about.


(29,171 posts)
40. You must be kidding..
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 05:59 PM
Jan 2012

"Unfortunately, the surplus in our public debt was far overshadowed every year by the growth of the intragovernment debt".

You mean like the debt Dubya ran up with his Unpaid For Iraq War and his Unpaid For Tax Cuts for the Wealthy?

Yes, he certainly DID run up the debt ( as well as waste lives) with that War based on Lies that was topped

off with that tax cut for "his base".


(78 posts)
41. Huh?
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:46 PM
Jan 2012

The statement you quoted basically said that during the Clinton years, we added to the national debt, every year.

No, I didn't mention anything about the debt W ran up, the conversation was strictly about the Clinton years.


(29,171 posts)
51. Huh?
Thu Jan 19, 2012, 01:53 AM
Jan 2012

"Unfortunately, the surplus in our public debt was far overshadowed every year by the growth of the intragovernment debt"

Sorry, the debt didn't explode til Bush II....You're assertion that the surplus was "far overshadowed" apparent every year

during the Clinton years is not apparent to us and will have to be explained.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
20. Objection overruled.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 06:12 AM
Jan 2012

Not only did Bubba balance the budget, the last 2 budgets he submitted to Congress wound up being surpluses, with or without including the Social Security program into the mix.

I know that's true because I read it here at the DU just this last week.


(78 posts)
43. Riddle me this
Wed Jan 18, 2012, 10:56 PM
Jan 2012

Ok, then tell me what fiscal year the national debt went down.

The budget you submit to congress doesn't count, it's the actual amount of money you spend. I budgeted last year to save $28,000...but I bought a speedboat in July and now I'm $29,000 in debt.

Now what matters more, the budget I submitted or what I actually spent.

(note...I didn't really buy a speedboat)


(16,113 posts)
6. Yes, I remember in the 80's when those repuke presidents were cutting taxes
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:37 PM
Jan 2012

and running up huge deficits. I'm glad that eventually the House of Representatives was given the power to handle taxes, budgets and revenue, that's probably how it should have been in the first place to prevent such an obvious abuse of power.


(111,251 posts)
8. Is this an attempt to be facetious or sarcastic?
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:43 PM
Jan 2012

Yes, the Congress has the power of the purse and the sad part is that Congresses have given Presidents of both Parties too much freedom in proposing their own budgets, especially when they knew it was wrong and would harm the country, especially the Democratic Party. The Republicans do not feel the same desire to cooperate, as we have seen.


(16,113 posts)
9. Not an attempt, I think it was a success.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:58 PM
Jan 2012

The House of Representatives was under the solid control of Democrats for all of the 80's. The fact that they gave presidents so much of what they wanted was their own fault. While repukes bear much of the responsibility for this, they couldn't have done it without the Dems who knew better. They had the ability and responsibility to stop it and they didn't. The Democrats SHOULD have done what the repukes are doing now.


(111,251 posts)
11. I can't disagree with that...
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:20 PM
Jan 2012

They thought the voters would see the recklessness of the Republicans and put them back into power in 1984 and it didn't happen. The shiny city on the hill won again. However, they were able to get some tax increases thru and were able to cut the deficit to a manageable level after that election. It was not so damaged that it could not be fixed, although it was severely damaged. But the Republicans had won the propaganda war. When Dubya stole the election, with the help of the Supreme Court, he had Republican control of Congress for six years and that was where the damage was irreversible. It was too much for our country to recover from in a short time. That is where we are today. We have made little progress on the big problems.


(5,967 posts)
15. "...finish the job" is proven in how the house under GOP simply picked up where they left off. They
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:54 AM
Jan 2012

bellowed how grateful they were to have a 'second chance' and how they had to prove they could govern yet they performed with the same negative zeal as they had under bush. They've made no effort to create one single job.


(24,689 posts)
21. The Republicans are backed by big money and big business and big media..
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:54 AM
Jan 2012

It is naive to think any one President in one term could change the deep seated problems in our government and our country. I think we have made good progress but there is a long way to go... and 4 more years of President Obama is our best bet.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
24. I disagree. They have only just started tryiny to break up the country.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:26 AM
Jan 2012

When the USA is old history and they own all the land and minerals in the West, please repost this


(29,171 posts)
39. They don't think it's "evil" when it works for the One Percent...When it works for the rest of us
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 10:27 AM
Jan 2012

They're ready to toss it out.


(10,942 posts)
29. There are some on DU that bash Obama and democrats as much as possible.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 10:37 PM
Jan 2012

When I see the attacks, I can only wonder how deep some people can shove their heads up their asses while clear and severe threats to their very citizenship are at work to strip them of every fucking consttutional right that they have. Republicans are a deadly threat to american society. Republicans gain office with lies and work to take away rights of voters that can vote them out of office. What takes place is a creeping South, when republicanism is ingrained in a largely ignorant populace. I can't see any sane person wanting to do any act other than awake every day with a burning desire to deny republicans any public office.


(16,854 posts)
57. i wonder the same thing
Wed Jan 25, 2012, 09:44 PM
Jan 2012

when democrats ignore the same forces penetrating our party and delude themselves that it's not happening.

rebubs would not succeed if there were an actual oppositional alternative.

walk, not talk

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How the Republicans tore ...