I find it strange to hear Republicans now raging against budget deficits. These same Republicans sat silent for 8 years while G.W. Bush took us from budget surpluses to the largest deficits in history.

Why didn't they speak up then?

We never had a budget surplus. it's all fuzzy math. There hasn't been a real surplus since Andrew Jackson.


The deficit was relatively small for the first 7 years in comparison to the last and what it is now. There's quite a difference between $500B and a couple trillion a year. Either way, we need to get away from deficit spending.

On the other side of the coin, how about all the Dems that used to cry out against the last administration's deficits that are completely supportive of the even further deficits now? It goes both ways. Tis the nature of politics.

The money has to be spent now to clean up the destruction (on all levels of our society) left by the previous administration.

Good question, but personally I think it's more about Obama than about the deficits, I think using the deficit just hides their real anxiety with Obama himself. I could be wrong but again why all the outrage now. It's almost as if the Bush administration never even happened and all the anxiety in the country is focused on one man now and that's Obama. Just pick an issue it's all Obama's fault now.

I have a feeling even if Obama cut the deficit in half tommorow with no pain to the public, he would be cause for something else. Even if the number that don't like him is small, it's loud and scarey.

I am just going by what I see right here on Mingle.

Well this topic was specifically about republicans though I would say dems can't cry now either.

Not to mention the trillions which went to line up the pockets of those prior to their departure

Andrew, you must realize that at the end of the Clinton administration, we had budget surpluses. I could post the links here if you make me look for them. So how did a Republican president with a Republican House and Senate leave us with the largest deficit in our history? Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism.

Never had a real surplus. Sure, the government budget was in the black but that's not a surplus. simplified...

Surplus = Income - Expenditures > $0

Every year, Clinton's administration borrowed billions and billions from programs like Social Security and Medicare (this has been practice for years, even before clinton. Guess why they're in danger of going broke). If we truly had a surplus, we'd have paid down some of the debt. That never happened. Look up the total government debt. Only a little over half of it is actual public holdings. The other part is what's called intergovernmental holdings. Pretty much, money the federal government owes itself. By borrowing billions from programs that had surpluses, the budget was effectively 'balanced' but we never had a real surplus.

Accounting is fun. There's a reason CPAs make so much - to push the legal limit to fool the world.


I'm not defending the Republicans' spending in the least. The great part is how everyone blames Iraq or the tax cuts for the deficit when in reality, those barely made half of it. There was lots of crap spending going on.

Mostly, I'm pointing out one-sidedness. Sure, W's administration left a huge deficit. Obama's will be even greater for the time period. You point out the hypocrisy of the Republicans as a liberal (or where'd I'd place you based on your posts) and I'm pointing out the equal hypocrisy of the Democrats. you can't play sides on this. Besides, it's far more fun to sit in the middle and poke fun at everyone's mistakes.



far from it. This was in the works long before Dubya ever thought of taking office. The issues in this have roots three-quarters of a century old and the actual crisis phase started under Clinton. It just took a decade to implode on itself.

War is right. There is a difference between gross debt and public debt. Gross debt includes the albatross of social security.

2000 was the only year under Clinton that the federal debt decreased.

in 93 it rose by 6%. 94 4.6%, 95 3.4%, 96 3.0%, 97 1.7%, 98 1.0%, 99 .08%...

it's andrew, actually lol

to add to this, in 2000 IIRC the public debt fell slightly but it was more than offset by the increase in intergovernmental holdings. The federal gross debt has not fallen since Andrew Jackson.

Let's not get off topic. Junior Bush inherited the largest surplus in history and left us with the largest deficit in history. These are facts.

The question is, how did this happen with a majority Republican(fiscal conservatives) in both houses of Congress?

Sorry Andrew.. Im watching tv and typing... Bad combo..

Im not buying the "largest surplus in history". As Andrew just explained, its not a surplus when you are still spending more money than you have. The gross debt rising doesnt equal a surplus.

Then it's a totally loaded question full of flaws. There was no surplus. period. the topic also implies that the hypocrisy is just limited to the republicans on that topic - it was across the board.

Also, republican != Fiscal Conservative.


it's all good Invictus... I screw up crap all the time lol.

It was never true. Look at the numbers of our national debt. It grew every year. So, when you take that into account, there couldn't have been a budget surplus as our national debt kept growing...

this is the amount of our national debt by year:


09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03


You don't see it shrinking which means there was no actual surplus.

Check it yourself at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Two points.
I see no dividing line between the so-called parties. They both are Politicians and both work for the Corporation. Their objective is to expand the Corporation. They have to satisfy their investors demands for a fair return on their investment. Investors being Special Interests.
The other point. To live in the past, offers no solution for the present or future. While we bicker the past, the Corporation is advancing, furthering it's oppressive agenda.

As far as i know government spending increase 25% under Bush Sr., 35% under Clinton, 45% under Bush Jr., and it will most likely be 55% under Obama....who wants to bet?

I hate to be redundant. But Clinton left office with the largest surplus in history and (Junior)Bush left office with the largest deficit(and debt) in history. What am I missing here?

The fact that Clinton didn't actually have a surplus. Sorry. If there was a surplus our debt wouldn't have increased. It's a play on numbers my friend.

What you should do, is ask why spending increased again under a supposed "conservative" president. The answer to this is simple. He was no conservative. This is where the term "Neoconservative" is introduced.

The fact there never was a surplus in the first place.

EDIT graph didn't translate so well...